In the Witness Box
The Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Kerr gave evidence to Jeffrey Donaldson's Assembly and Executive Review Committee this morning. He expressed surprise at media reports that he was due to face a grilling, adding that he was probably a rare person in the Senate Chamber in that he had given evidence previously from the witness box.
Committee member Raymond McCartney, a former leader of the IRA prisoners in the Maze, begged to differ, informing the LCJ that he also had experience of the witness box. Jailed for two murders in the 70s, the Foyle MLA had the convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal earlier this year.
Sir Brian used his appearance to suggest a more "hands off" model for the Courts Service than suggested so far by the NIO. The NIO envisages the Courts Service as an executive agency accountable to a future devolved Justice Minister. Instead Sir Brian proposes a "non-ministerial department" headed by a Board which he or his successors would chair, which would include a representative from the Justice Ministry. His board would submit a strategic plan to the Minister and provide the department with annual reports. The LCJ argued this model would mirror the one in the Republic of Ireland and one planned for Scotland. It would also require fresh legislation.
When invited by the DUP's George Robinson to comment on the appropriate timing of the transfer of justice powers, Sir Brian declined to stray into such overtly political waters. However, by suggesting a scheme which would require fresh legislation he may have unintentionally supplied ammunition to those in the DUP inclined to argue that this matter is so complicated that it cannot possibly be resolved by the NIO's target date of May 2008.
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Mark
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE – A LAW ONTO HIMSELF
Sir Brian did not adduce any evidence to counter the generally accepted belief that the Judiciary is out of touch, most notably on the question of sentencing policy. At present, the Judiciary is impenetrable; public outcry or individual anguish at sentences that are too severe or too lenient is met with a brand of judicial omerta of which the Sicilian Mafia would be proud.
While Sir Brian is comfortable in waxing philosophically about the necessity for policing and justice to be independent of political interference, we, and indeed he, should not lose sight of the fact that the public wants the Judiciary to be wholly accountable. To assess Sir Brian’s post devolution proposal it is important not to succumb to the seductiveness of his exaggerated reasonableness, precise language and relaxed demeanour. Forget, also, all the flimflam about his proposal being similar to that operating in other nearby jurisdictions; in effect, he’s proposing a glorified judicial Quango*, controlled by a Lord Chief Justice, that would shed no light into the dark crevasses of sentencing decisions. He is clearly determined that there will be little regulatory oversight or scrutiny of individual judges’ decisions.
[* For information, the alleged main characteristics of many a Northern Ireland Quango are: recurrent disregard for established standards of public conduct relating to conflicts of interests, all singing-all dancing Annual Report Launches, widespread distribution of expensive glossy Brochures that no one reads, the engagement of expensive private sector consultants at the drop of a hat, Freebies for selected staff members, exorbitant staff travel expenses and frequent, purposeless Finger Buffets).]
Of course, the Judiciary will continue to pay lip service to public disquiet at perverse sentences by having the occasional Appeal by the Attorney General in cases of extreme leniency. There will also be a few judicial decisions (selected by the sentencing Judge) displayed on the Court Service website That’s as far as it goes. By and large, Judges’ reasons for sentences will continue to be hidden from the lumpen proletariat. In consequence, the Public will continue to believe that perverse sentencing results from inefficiency and /or corruption at the heart of the legal system and that Judges are definitely out of touch.
Unfortunately we live in an imperfect World and, despite the judicial frailties outlined above, I’m one hundred percent behind the Lord Chief Justice’s suggested model for the Court service, post transfer of powers. In my case, I would take my chances of a fair trial with Sir Brian rather than entrust the task to that shower of Criminals, Murderers, Numpties and Wasters in the Assembly.
Oh yes, the Lord Chief Justice is indeed a law onto himself but, given the alternative, I’m with the Judge.
THIS POST IS NOW ADJOURNED!!
Susie
Carryduff
The Lord Chief Justice would be proud of Susie's summary