Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman—it was outrageous, unfair and based on no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps on a later occasion, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) will take the opportunity to correct that false impression. As I was saying, I think that I confused—unintentionally—the hon. Member for East Antrim regarding the review and the current checks on the Diplock courts. The Government are asking us to agree to a huge extension of the use of non-jury trials. The DPP has merely to suspect that one of the four conditions that I mentioned earlier is satisfied, and that there is a risk of an infringement of the administration of justice. The only circumstances in which a court of any description—be it the House of Lords, which is the highest court in the land, or, I suspect, the European Court of Justice—may get involved are outlined in clause 7. This is extraordinary. It states:"““No court may entertain proceedings for questioning (whether by way of judicial review or otherwise) any decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in relation to the issue of a certificate under section 1.””" The phrase in brackets is very interesting, because I suspect that the intention is to oust the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, and certainly of the House of Lords here in London, which is absolutely unacceptable. The only two grounds that are permitted are mentioned in clause 7(2):"““Subsection (1) prevents a court, in particular, from entertaining proceedings to determine whether a decision or purported decision of the Director (without dishonesty or bad faith)””—" those are the only two grounds—"““was a nullity by reason of lack of jurisdiction or error of law.””"