Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

moved Amendment No. 14: 14: After Clause 6 , insert the following new Clause— ““Challenge of issue of certificate (1) There shall be a commission, to be known as the Special Appeals Commission. (2) Where a certificate has been issued under section 1 the defendant may appeal to the Commission. (3) The Commission shall allow an appeal against the issuing of a certificate under section 1 if it considers that the decision to issue the certificate was flawed when considered in the light of the principles applicable on an application for judicial review. (4) Where the Commission allows an appeal under this section it may make an order under this subsection. (5) Where an order is made under subsection (4) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, withdraw the certificate issued under section 1. (6) Schedule (The Special Appeals Commission) has effect.”” The noble Lord said: The amendments concern the challenge of the issue of certificate. Overall, we understand the need for the protection of sensitive information. Just as the Shuker judgment said, decisions must be firmly based on the practical implications of permitting judicial review. However, we do not want to restrict judicial review unnecessarily. The right to trial by jury, as has already been said, is a basic principle of UK law and should not be set aside lightly. We continue to have some doubts about the wisdom of a necessarily partisan player such as the DPP making such a decision. The procedure must not be allowed to become more opaque than it is already, if that is indeed where we must end up. We have tabled two sets of amendments. Amendment No. 16 is a probing amendment extending the possible grounds on which judicial review is based in Clause 7. It would insert two extra grounds: ““lack of jurisdiction”” and ““error of law, or””. The Government have taken the three reasons currently in the Bill from a case mentioned in the Shuker judgment at paragraph 17,R v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Kebilene and others (2002), where Lord Steyn said, "““absent dishonesty or mala fides or an exceptional circumstance, the decisions of the Director to consent to the prosecution of applicants is not amenable to judicial review””." Do the Government not feel that there are other standard reasons where a judicial review might be wise? My second set of amendments is rather more substantial. They establish the right to an appeal against the decision by means of a special commission. The structure and powers of that commission have been based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which established a similar process to deal with the decision to remove a name from the list of proscribed organisations. The commission will be able to hear sensitive evidence in private, so the decision will be able to be reviewed without risk. We feel that that procedure would be a valuable safeguard against the use of the certificate. The DPP's decision will often be controversial and this measure will improve public confidence in it while maintaining due regard to the sensitivity of the information. I beg to move.