I place confidence in the DPP because of his experience and because he is dealing with similar kinds of judgments. As the hon. Member for East Antrim pointed out, the DPP is already experienced in making decisions about mode of trial in relation to the serious cases that go before Diplock courts and in other cases as well. He is experienced in doing that and has my confidence so to continue doing.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute invited me to comment on amendment No. 5, which clearly displays further thought in relation to this matter, and some might describe it as quite a clever wheeze. Amendment No. 5 proposes keeping clause 7 and giving the trial judge a role in deciding whether to accept the DPP’s certificate for non-jury trial. In other words, it would introduce an automatic judicial review in every single case. It is not a question whether there should be a facility for judicial review; the proposition is that there should be a judicial review in every case. There is the potential to become even more embroiled in the judicial process, because the trial judge would have to give reasons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cambridge keeps making comments from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene, I will happily give way.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Paul Goggins
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 February 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
456 c774-5 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:04:23 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376327
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376327
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376327