Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 60.
“The Committee requested further information from the Department on the potential consequences for Northern Ireland of not being included in the provisions and clarification of whether cryptocurrency was covered by the provision. It has also sought the views of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.”
“In addition to the provisions that I have already mentioned, on 16 June 2021, the Committee was advised that the Home Office will make an amendment to the Bill to bring electronic money and payment institutions within the scope of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 freezing and forfeiture powers in respect of Northern Ireland. The Committee has been pursuing the issue separately since 18 March, when it noted the correspondence from the Minister of Justice that advised of a request from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to consider legislative consent for a clause in the Financial Services Bill. The Minister indicated to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that it would not be feasible for an LCM to proceed within the short time provided.”
“The Committee sought further details on the risk management processes that are already in place for the management of sex offenders who move between jurisdictions and noted that the framework is provided by the public prosecution arrangements for Northern Ireland. In responding to the points set out by the Department, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission urged the Committee to protect the monitoring and review of oversight functions but advised that it otherwise had no further comments about the management of sex offenders and the amendments to the SOPOs. <BR /> <BR />The LCM seemed to the Committee to be never-ending.”
“The Department also confirmed that, as recommended by the Human Rights Commission, it will complete a section 75 screening exercise when preparing secondary legislation relating to speeding courses as an alternative to prosecution and that, as part of that process, it will consult relevant stakeholders, including the commission. The Committee will, of course, be able to ensure that that has taken place when it considers any secondary legislation that is brought before it. <BR /> <BR />In respect of the issues relating to the SOPOs, the Department has advised that effective risk management processes agreed between police forces and probation services are in place across the UK and are compliant with international human rights standards.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also asked the Department for its response to the issues raised by the Human Rights Commission. For Members' information, details of the subsequent extensive engagement on those issues between the Committee, the Department and the commission is set out in the Committee's report. In its most recent response, the Department set out information about the oversight arrangements relating to the SOPO and advised that similar oversight will be considered for future international cooperation agreements, as and when they are required.”
“The Committee therefore wrote to the Department to ascertain if the views of the Department of Justice in the Republic and the Northern Ireland Office had been sought on the potential implications of the provisions relating to the location of human remains on the work of the remains body. The Department initially advised that neither organisation had been contacted but that the Home Office was of the view that the provisions did not impede or undermine the work of the ICLVR, although there was no indication of what information that view was based on. Having sought clarification of the basis on which the Home Office had reached that view, the Committee received confirmation from the Department of Justice that the ICLVR had advised that it was content that the provision had no adverse effects on the commission or its endeavours.”
“The commission also recommended that, in order to ensure equal access for all, the cost of the fees for training courses for low-level driving offences, which are used instead of fixed penalties, should not be prohibitive and that any changes in policy relating to the cost of course alternatives should be accompanied by a section 75 equality impact assessment (EQIA). <BR /> <BR />As suggested by the Human Rights Commission, the Committee wrote to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains for its views on the potential implications of the provisions relating to the location of human remains for its ongoing work. It responded by advising that it is an implementation body and the legislation and policies that underlie it are fundamentally a matter for the Irish and UK Governments.”
“The Human Rights Commission also advised that the amendments to the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 regarding the communication data will impact on the right to privacy and freedom of expression and that further safeguards will be required in order to ensure that the acquisition of such data does not violate articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The commission suggested other issues that the Committee may wish to seek more information on, including who would be a prescribed person allowed to serve overseas production orders; how individuals subject to the Scottish sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders would be identified when moving between jurisdictions; and any potential implications for the work of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains (ICLVR).”
“The Committee has continued to follow up on that issue separately, so I do not intend to cover it any further this evening.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having considered that correspondence, the Committee agreed to ask the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People for their views on all the provisions to be included in the proposed LCM, including their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Both the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General drew attention to and raised a number of issues in their responses on the provisions regarding the extraction of data from mobile devices. The Committee was, however, subsequently advised on 16 June 2021 that the Executive had not agreed to the inclusion of that provision in the LCM but instead may return to the issue once the related code of practice has been consulted on.”
“The Department advised that the PSNI had confirmed that it was content with the provisions and that the Home Office had advised that it expected them to be very rarely used. <BR /> <BR />Further correspondence was received from the Department on 17 February advising of an additional provision requiring consent relating to the powers to extract information from mobile devices. That is to address a recommendation by the Information Commissioner's Office that the legislative framework should be strengthened to ensure clarity for victims and witnesses and offenders, to address inconsistencies between forces and to clarify the lawful basis for the data extraction.”
“The Department subsequently wrote to the Committee on 28 January to advise that the Executive had agreed to the proposal to introduce the LCM, and it provided the further information requested by the Committee during the oral evidence session. <BR /> <BR />The Department also advised of another provision that was expected to be included in the Bill for which consent would be required. That will provide powers for the police in England and Wales to apply to the courts for an order to access special procedure material that may relate to the location of human remains without the need for it to count as evidence in the investigation of a criminal offence, as is currently required when applying for search warrants.”
“The Minister has set out the details of those provisions, which, you will be glad to know, I do not intend to repeat. <BR /> <BR />The Department advised that, with the constraints on the legislative programme in this mandate, it would not be possible to achieve the equivalent legislation for those provisions via an Assembly Bill in the same timescale that could be achieved with the Westminster Bill. In addition, the forthcoming Bill included UK-wide provisions and would enable gaps to be addressed more quickly in a way that would be beneficial to Northern Ireland. The Committee agreed to consider the matter further when the Bill was available and the Executive had reached a position on the proposal to extend the provisions to Northern Ireland by way of an LCM.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I will outline the detailed engagement that it has had on the provisions to be included in this legislative consent motion. <BR /> <BR />Department of Justice officials attended the Justice Committee on 14 January to provide oral evidence on the provisions that had been identified at that time for inclusion in the forthcoming Bill to be introduced at Westminster. The Committee was told that those related to the amendments to the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 to address practical issues that had arisen during its implementation; the cross-jurisdictional enforcement of the Scottish sexual harm prevention orders and the sexual risk orders; and statutory authority for the national driver offender retraining scheme.”
“That is unfair to many in the legal system who work extremely hard in very challenging and difficult circumstances.”
“I thank the Member for getting to that point. What is being proposed is equally about human beings. Sometimes, in the House, we have a very narrow view of what constitutes a human being. I have heard the Member in the House rightly defend, in other circumstances, minorities, small groups, people who are isolated and people who are vulnerable. If that is the argument, surely she has to carry it across. I am disappointed that the Minister made an assertion — I can say this because I have never been and never will have the ability to be a member of the legal profession — and almost assumed that, somehow, there is an attempt here to satisfy someone's mates and that, because there is payment for representing clients, this is part of trying to ensure that those who have a vested interest be considered.”
“There should be a recognition of the number of people who are currently on remand, albeit it is only one aspect of the judicial system. There are over 600 people on remand. That is a huge cost to the taxpayer.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am always concerned when Members talk in the House about how something will give a greater return for the taxpayer or, as is the case in this instance, say that a measure will dramatically speed up the justice process. Members must realise that there are over 600 people on remand, currently. That is my understanding. We are not seeing the system speeding up, and we are not seeing the outcomes envisaged in what was proposed by a previous Justice Minister. Sometimes, we have to anchor some of these reforms, as I said previously, not only to one element but to a wider piece of work including other elements of the judicial process, so that we get better outcomes. It should be grounded in that sense of reality.”
“Special advocate support offices are used in other parts of the UK to minimise the risk of hearings being delayed, but there is not one in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />That is just one other aspect of the caseload, but it underlines the deep and far-reaching challenges facing our criminal justice system. No one should therefore underestimate the challenges that the Minister and her Department face, but, on balance, following my comments and what has been said previously, it is our party's intention to support amendment Nos 1 and 2.”
“This is not about alleging that the amendments are about wrecking the Bill: they are not. I do not think that that was the Member's intention when the amendments were tabled, nor I do take that to be the case from anything that he has said in the House. I have heard the Member speak on many previous occasions in the House and know that, if he wants to wreck something, he is the one who can dismantle it, but I do not get the sense from him today that that is his intention or what he is about. <BR /> <BR />It is also striking that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation made some observations in his latest report. He stated:”
“If you read through the Committee report, you will see that the reasons given by the Department for why the 2015 legislation was not enacted are pretty light. The Member also provided an answer about the timescale. If you look at the timescale, you will see that there was surely ample time for the legislation that had been approved by the House to be enacted. <BR /> <BR />My next point is important. The Minister provided assurance about the capacity for evidence to be tested at an early stage in the Crown Court in the absence of preliminary investigations or mixed committals. That will need to be watched closely going forward. On balance, however, it is important that we strike a balance with the amendments between trying to reinstate what was approved and progressing the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for giving us that explanation. It raises a further question, however, which is this: what has primacy, the Executive or the House? Is it what was enacted, or is it subsequent political agreements? The Minister is right that it is a five-party mandatory coalition. I was not part of the deliberations at the time, but I have subsequently been moved to take up the position that I have now as Chair of the Justice Committee, and, having given it consideration, I believe that there is merit in what is being said about the House. I do not think that the NDNA agreement or any other document can direct this legislation to go in some other way, with limited reference to what happened in the House in 2015.”
“No account seems to have been taken by the Executive or the Department of what had been approved and agreed in the House. It is for those reasons —”
“— the three wise men; I know that we are heading towards Christmas, but I did not think that we were going to get there this soon —”
“It did not receive support at all. The Department continues:”
“That is because, in addition to paragraph 69 of the Justice Committee's report, which Mr Allister mentioned, we have the Department's clause-by-clause response to various comments made by the Bar of Northern Ireland. The Department states:”
“How many times have we heard Members talk about the primacy of what the Assembly has decided on other issues? I may differ with them on a particular issue because my party or others were not able to secure enough votes after the relevant debate, but this is, for what it is worth and despite the weakness that comes from a five-party mandatory coalition, the House that has been appointed to pass legislation. <BR /> <BR />I share the concern — maybe that is putting it mildly — of Mr Allister. It was good to hear him use the word "compromise", because it is not something that he is given to doing. However, it is part of the process here: we try to come to an agreed position. That was done, and there was a settled will of the Assembly. I heard the Minister's interventions, but I am not convinced by what she said.”
“There is a particularly pressing need to remove existing barriers to more efficient and timely court proceedings. That will benefit victims, first and foremost, but it will also ensure that accused persons have access to a fair and expeditious trial. <BR /> <BR />We take on board the points made by the Member for North Antrim. There is a need to ensure that the step change in relation to committal proceedings does not dilute the principles of justice or lead to otherwise weak cases being brought to trial in the Crown Court. We support the amendments, therefore, that protect the principles of preliminary investigations in those distinct cases in which a defendant seeks to claim a trial by jury. <BR /> <BR />The point has been made about this House: while it is far from perfect in its construct, it is what we have.”
“The Committee noted the rationale for and the text of the amendment at its meeting on 14 October. <BR /> <BR />I have concluded my comments as the Chair of the Justice Committee. I will now make a few comments as a Member of the House and a member of the DUP. I thank the Member who spoke previously for the detail that he provided about the amendments. We should respect the experience that he brings to these matters, given his long history and association with things legal. <BR /> <BR />Our party fully supports the aims of tackling avoidable delay in the criminal justice system. I do not think that anybody in the House would argue that that is not a commendable thing to seek to achieve. We all know of the trauma that victims can go through when there is delay in seeking to get to a conclusion.”
“Having considered the evidence received, the Committee agreed that it was content with the provisions of the Bill as drafted and does not seek to make any amendments to them. <BR /> <BR />After its consideration of the Bill was completed, the Committee was advised by the Minister of her intention to table an amendment to the Bill to make a small change. That is amendment No 3. As it currently stands in the Bill, any request for a legal aid certificate to the Crown Court can be made only after evidence has been shared with the court. To prevent any delay in providing legal representation for the defendant, the amendment will ensure that the legal aid certificate can be applied for at any stage after the case is directly committed to the Crown Court.”
“<BR /> <BR />In weighing up the small number of cases to which the interest of justice test may apply against the thematic effect that the requirements to give oral evidence pretrial may have on victims and witnesses, the Committee concluded that the removal of oral evidence at committal stage will reassure victims and witnesses that they will not have to give oral evidence or be subject to cross-examination twice. As the Lord Chief Justice advised, it is difficult to argue for the retention of the process by which a small number of cases may be eliminated when considered against the risk of an injurious impact on victims and added delay to case progression, which affects not only victims and witnesses but defendants, who may spend a significant time in custody awaiting trial.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was unable to assess the validity of the assertions made in the evidence that was received that the interest of justice test, as provided for in the 2015 Act, would appropriately safeguard the rights of all parties, given that it was never enacted, but it noted the recommendations from a number of reviews and reports that called for the implementation of direct committal. The Committee was advised that a defendant's right to a fair trial is not compromised by the removal of preliminary investigations or mixed committals as that right is secured at the trial stage of the criminal proceedings.”
“The Committee sought an explanation from the Department regarding why those were not commenced, and it requested clarification and information on the other issues and concerns that have been outlined. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also requested further information from the Department on the Criminal Procedure Act 2021 in the Republic of Ireland, which introduced pretrial hearings in that jurisdiction, and how it compared with the current position in Northern Ireland and the position as changed by the Bill. In addition, it asked for that to be specifically covered in the research paper. Details of the Committee's consideration of those issues are set out in the report on the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Under the provisions of the 2015 Act the accused can, in certain circumstances, be directly transferred to the Crown Court for trial without the need for a traditional committal hearing. As introduced at the time, the Justice Bill also sought to abolish oral evidence at committal stage, but it was amended by the Assembly to provide for oral evidence to be called if a judge is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so, as we heard from Mr Allister. <BR /> <BR />In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee ascertained that the interests of justice provisions in the Justice Act 2015 were never formally commenced, and it appreciates that concerns were expressed about that.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also wants to see consideration being given to capturing how legislation improves the experiences of victims and witnesses once it is enacted. The main concerns about the Bill came from the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Bar of Northern Ireland. They raised a number of issues that are relevant to the amendments we are considering, including whether there is a need to abolish oral evidence completely at committal stage or to instead apply the interest of justice test provided for in the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015; the impact of the abolition of oral evidence and the right to a fair trial; the removal of preliminary investigations; and the mixed committal as a filter for weak or vexatious prosecutions.”
“<BR /> <BR />Notwithstanding the questions about whether the Bill will have an impact on delays in the system, the majority of those who responded to the Committee's call for evidence expressed support for the Bill and for the removal of oral evidence at committal stage. References were made to the impact that that has on victims and witnesses and to the additional stress and anxiety caused by the potential of having to give evidence twice. Instead of testing evidence to determine whether there is a prima facie case, some also contended that it was used as a tactic to test the resilience of the victim. The then Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, noted that a number of judges expressed concern that it may occasionally be used in that way.”
“It is vital, therefore, that any reallocation of resources is not focused solely on the courts but encompasses the early stages of the process. <BR /> <BR />Despite the aim of the Bill being to reduce delay, the Committee remains concerned about the time taken for cases to progress through the criminal justice system. That issue has been evidenced for a considerable number of years without any demonstrable progress being made. The Committee therefore indicated that it wants to receive regular reports on the specific impact that the Bill has on reducing overall delay in the criminal justice system.”
“The Committee believes that early engagement between all parties, as well as effective case management procedures, is vital and that it is essential that the necessary frameworks and resources are in the right place to prevent delays being shifted in that way and to make a material reduction in the time taken for cases to be completed. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is not convinced that the Bill is a silver bullet but views it as one element of a wider programme of work that is required to speed up the justice system. Clearly, there are issues in other stages of the process. Data from the Department indicates that much of the delay comes at the earlier stages before the case reaches court. That illustrates the need for more robust investigatory and disclosure processes.”
“<BR /> <BR />It may assist the Assembly's consideration of the amendments to clauses 1 and 2 and to the schedule, tabled by Mr Allister, if I briefly outline the Committee's consideration of the provisions of the Bill, which he has already referred to. One of the stated aims of the Bill is to help to speed up justice and reduce delay in the criminal justice system. In the written and oral evidence that the Committee received, there were conflicting views on whether the Bill will have a noticeable impact in that regard. Concerns were expressed that it will simply shift delays from one part of the system to another.”
“The Committee also appreciates the support and assistance provided by Assembly staff, including the researcher, the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the communications office, Assembly Broadcasting and staff from Hansard, who all played an important role in supporting the Committee to undertake its legislative scrutiny role in general and with the Committee Stage of the Bill in particular. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I thank the Committee team, who supported the Committee not just to complete the Committee Stage of the Bill but to progress the Damages (Return on Investment) Bill and the Protection from Stalking Bill, which were also under consideration by the Committee during that period.”
“I also thank the organisations that provided helpful written evidence and particularly the representatives of the organisations who attended to provide oral evidence. Their contributions greatly assisted our understanding of the committal reform process in general and the changes that the Bill will implement. I also record the Committee's thanks to the departmental officials who provided additional information and clarification in writing and in oral evidence during the process.”
“The Committee also sought the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules on whether the range of powers in the Bill to make subordinate legislation are appropriate, and, to assist consideration of the issues highlighted in the evidence, it commissioned two research papers on the reform of the criminal justice process in other jurisdictions and on statutory time limits. The Committee considered the Bill's provisions and the issues raised at 15 meetings before agreeing its report on the Bill at its meeting on 10 June 2021. <BR /> <BR />I thank members of the Committee for their contribution to the robust and careful scrutiny of the Bill and the issues raised in the evidence during Committee Stage.”
“The Bill should improve the experiences of victims and witnesses as they will not be required to do that twice for the same case. <BR /> <BR />Following the Second Stage, the Committee published a media signposting notice in the main newspapers inviting written evidence on the Bill, and it wrote to a range of key stakeholders. Some 16 written submissions were received. The then Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, also provided a very useful commentary on a number of issues on behalf of the judiciary. The Committee took oral evidence from the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Law Society and the Public Prosecution Service, and the issues that were raised in the written and oral evidence were explored with the Department of Justice in writing and in oral evidence sessions.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is deemed to be a step forward in the Department's aim of abolishing the traditional committal process entirely, and the Committee is of the view that the phased approach being taken is an appropriate one. As the then Committee Chair outlined during the Second Stage debate on the principles of the Bill, there have been many calls for reform or, indeed, eradication of the committal process over recent years. In addition to the time that it takes for cases to progress through the criminal justice system, one of the key concerns about the process is the impact that it has on victims and on witnesses, who may be required to give oral evidence at the committal stage as well as at the trial itself. The experience of giving oral evidence can be traumatic, particularly under cross-examination, and has a significant impact.”
“Before addressing the amendments, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make some general remarks about the Bill in my capacity as Chair of the Justice Committee. I pay tribute to my predecessor, now the First Minister, who at that stage was the Chair of the Committee, and to the work of his colleagues in the preparation of the report. The Committee supports the Bill, which will remove the need for victims and witnesses to have to give general evidence pre-Crown Court trial by providing for the abolition of preliminary investigations and mixed committals. It also seeks to get more cases to the Crown Court more quickly by expanding the range of evidence to which direct committal will apply, and it makes a number of technical amendments to smooth the committal process.”
“What are the timescales for putting the administrative measures in place, particularly the use of third-party intermediaries to engage with prisoners to encourage disclosure?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement to the House. There can be nothing more devastating for families than not knowing what happened to their loved one and the victim's body never being found. I concur with the Minister's final comments about those two families, and I add the Arkinson family. Obviously, these are issues of grave concern, particularly for those families. On behalf of the Justice Committee, I welcome the review and the Minister's statement. Indeed, officials from her Department are due to come to the Committee on Thursday to discuss this very issue. <BR /> <BR />Minister, as well as consulting on the potential legislative measures, you are looking at a number of administrative measures. Some of those build on existing arrangements, and others introduce a new approach.”
“The Member makes reference to a panel in her amendment, but, having had discussions with her earlier, it seems as though it is more about the persons with whom the Department will consult. That is an issue for the Minister to consider when she responds later. <BR /> <BR />The focus for us has to be on getting to a point where the legislation comes into operation. We cannot allow the current situation to prevail. Time is of the essence. It is appropriate for us to ensure that the draft legislation continues to progress through the House towards completion.”
“I will now make a few observations as a member of the Committee. I place on record my appreciation and thanks to the staff of the Justice Committee for the outstanding amount of work that they did in bringing forward the report. The depth of the report gives an indication of how much work was carried out. We thank them for that. <BR /> <BR />It is not our party's intention to support the amendment. There was an opportunity to deal with the issue in the Committee. I appreciate what the Member said about timing, but, given that there has been a long process to get us to this point, it would have been helpful if we had had a discussion. I made a point about the experience in England. There is a slight difference in what constitutes a panel.”
“That draws to a conclusion my comments as Chair.”