Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goldsmith (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.


Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

If the noble Lord will permit me—paragraph 1.34 deals with the previous version of this clause, which I do not put and would not have supported before your Lordships. The JCHR is saying that the previous version of the clause, which appeared to be, on one reading at least, a complete ouster, represented an argument that was rejected in Shuker—namely that there could be no judicial review at all. I do not say that Shuker states that there cannot be judicial review at all, I say that it has to be, as the extract mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, considered with reticence—and I have indicated the reasons why. So I do not read paragraph 1.34 as rejecting the argument that there is not a problem in relation to the potential disclosure of sensitive information; the paragraph was dealing with the previous version of the clause, which we accept was not acceptable. That is why the clause has been substantially amended.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c133-4GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Accountability Appeals Crime Administration of justice Attorney General Juries Evidence Intelligence services Human rights Intimidation National security Northern Ireland Police Powers Relatives Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Offences against the administration of justice Terrorism Trials Attorney General for Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions Scheduled offences Challenge to jury
Legislation
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk