Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill |
|
Mr. Hanson: My opposition to the amendment does not preclude the idea that if someone genuinely wants to show remorse they can do so when the person presiding over the trial gives them an opportunity to say something at the end of the conviction. Such remorse would be a genuine sentiment, which, I am sure, would be welcomed by the victims. To put a formulaic provision in place whereby an individual had to express remorse would mean that we would risk individuals coming forward and uttering not serious remorse, but a token expression of it. As my hon. Friend said—again, I am pleased to agree with him—somebody who believes himself to be innocent could still be found guilty. Under the formula proposed, such a person would have to express an element of remorse that they would not feel, given their deeply held conviction that they were innocent of the charges. For both those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Robinson: I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment—but for none of the reasons that have been suggested. It was something of a probing amendment to set people up for a later amendment to clause 11. We shall come back to the issue; none of the arguments that have been provided will apply when we deal with those who, far from being apologetic, glorify the activities in which they have been involved and the fact that they have been able to walk out of the court without having to serve a day in prison. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mark Durkan: I beg to move amendment No. 260, in clause 8, page 6, line 10, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 43, in schedule 2, page 17, line 42, at end insert—
Column Number: 297 Mark Durkan: It is a fundamental provision of law that justice be done in public. Amendment No. 260 is self-explanatory. It would oblige a trial to take place in open court. Why do we need that? Because of the suspicions about so many other ruses for which the Bill provides, and because of experience. The provision of law that justice be done in public was undermined in the north when there was screening of witnesses in Diplock courts. It was undermined by witnesses such as Colonel J., the head of the Force Research Unit, being able to testify anonymously at Brian Nelson’s trial. The Inquiries Act 2005 undermined the independence of public inquiries, with the Secretary of State reserving the right to prevent any information from being made public by an inquiry. Provisions in other clauses of the Bill mean that the Secretary of State can at any stage, for any reason of his own choosing, override the requirements of the Bill for information to be provided to victims and for names to be provided and so on. There is every reason, therefore, to worry that the Government will at some stage try to take all this a step further, either by proposing amendments obliging the special tribunal to meet in private when the Secretary of State so directs or, when the tribunal is established, by applying to it for private hearings. As we know from other recent events, the Government may have another option: to ensure that the special prosecutor does not bring a case to court at all and drops the charges. If we follow the Government’s defence of recent events, there is no reason why that would not happen under their plans for this legislation. We believe that private hearings must not be allowed if justice is to be done and truth is to be told. That is why we propose amendment No. 260: it would oblige the special tribunal to meet in public. Amendment No. 43, tabled by the Democratic Unionist party, would have a similar effect, so we are delighted to support that, too. Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Member for Foyle says, amendment No. 43 would have the same impact as amendment No. 260. We therefore see no need to press ours; we are happy to support his. It is a fundamental principle of British law that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. The people who carried out the activities in question planned them in a hole in the corner. They probably hid behind a hedge and waited for someone. It is about time they appeared in the open, so that the victims can see those who are responsible for the agony that they have suffered, and they come under the full scrutiny of the public. If all that those people have to suffer is being held up to public ridicule, that is the very least that should occur. It should be an open court, with the press entitled to be there and full reporting facilities available. Mr. Hanson: I hope to be able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and the hon. Member for Belfast, East. The special tribunal will have the
The same powers currently exist for the Crown court presiding judge as will exist for the special tribunal presiding judge. There are circumstances in which public access can be restricted in the Crown court, such as for cases in which there may be vulnerable witnesses, or a need to protect a witness from potential intimidation. The Crown court exercises those powers very sparingly. The special tribunal will have the same powers. I do not expect it to exercise them, but again, for the reasons that I have explained, I have reserved the right for the presiding judge, not for the Government, to determine whether the circumstances require them to be used. Generally, however, no provisions in the Bill prohibit public access, and I anticipate that the vast majority of cases brought before the tribunal will be open to the public and to public scrutiny. The only time that they will not be open will be if the presiding judge deems that they should not be, to protect a witness or prevent intimidation.I hope that that reassures both hon. Members and that they will not press their amendments to a Division. The Chairman: I shall call the hon. Member for Belfast, East first, because the hon. Member for Foyle has the lead amendment. Does the hon. Member for Belfast, East want to respond to the Minister? Mr. Robinson: I do not intend to press amendment No. 43 to a vote. Mark Durkan: I heard what the Minister said, but if what he said is so, there can be no reasonable objection to the amendment, because all it would do is write that assurance into the Bill, albeit in a more meaningful and reassuring way. Mr. Hanson: The amendment would not do that. It says:
As I said to the hon. Gentleman, if that tribunal was a Crown court, the presiding judge would have discretion in exceptional circumstances to restrict public access if witnesses were being intimidated or if vulnerable witnesses could not perform in an open court. The amendment would restrict the power of the presiding judge in the tribunal to have that very limited opportunity to restrict public access, as he could do if the case was brought before a Crown court. Column Number: 299 Mark Durkan: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for trying to make the point. We know from the other provisions, however, that there will be all sorts of limitations on whatever information is brought before the tribunal. The Secretary of State can insist on anonymity as far back as at the certification stage, and can certify that all sorts of information relevant to cases is not to be given to anyone other than to the certification commissioner and himself. I therefore do not see the need for the tribunal to have the sort of protection that the Minister mentions. In any case, if other provisions ensure that the tribunal acts with the same powers as the Crown court or the High Court, again I do not see the need for the Government to resist the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 16. [Division No.
AYES Burt, LorelyDonaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M. Durkan, Mark Hermon, Lady McDonnell, Dr Alasdair Öpik, Lembit Robinson, Mr. Peter Wilson, Sammy
NOES Anderson, Mr. DavidBanks, Gordon Brown, Mr. Russell Coaker, Mr. Vernon Cooper, Rosie Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester) Hanson, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Tom Hendrick, Mr. Mark Hillier, Meg Irranca-Davies, Huw McDonagh, Siobhain Moon, Mrs. Madeleine Slaughter, Mr. Andrew Todd, Mr. Mark Waltho, Lynda Question accordingly negatived. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Coaker.] Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve midnight till Thursday 15 December at Nine o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 16 December 2005 |