Interface communities who want to remove barriers will get help from government, under the Department of Justice’s draft community safety strategy. Forty-seven barriers were ‘inherited’ from the NIO and the term peace walls “appears increasingly outdated”.

The emphasis on sharing is the most innovative part of the document. All public services also have a responsibility to provide “shared spaces” where people can congregate without the threat of aggressive flags and emblems.

Consultation on the strategy, for 2011 to 2015, will close on 15 April. It follows on from the previous 2003-2008 strategy; a replacement was delayed until justice was devolved.

“Community safety” is frequently used in official language. In practice, it means finding local solutions to local problems with the help of organisations other than the police e.g. councils, youth clubs or the Housing Executive. Its overall aim is to reduce crime, the fear of crime, and anti-social behaviour (i.e. aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that affects someone’s quality of life).

In summary, the department wants communities to be not just safer, but shared and more confident.

Under the first theme, anti-social behaviour “can mean different things to different people.” Neighbourhood watches, CCTV and warning letters help to tackle the problem. Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) are usually a last resort, and readers are asked whether they find these to be effective. The department is prepared to consider alternatives.

‘Early years’ and ‘early stage’ interventions are considered important e.g. home visits to troubled families, referrals to drug rehabilitation, youth conferencing. Much of this work is done outside the justice system but can reduce offending later on in life.

In 2009-2010, the PSNI recorded 2,148 hate crimes, mostly sectarian and racist. The “devastating impact” on victims is greater than the numbers suggest and new proposals are due to be published.

Reported crime levels have steadied at around 110,000 offences per year since 2007 but estimates suggest that less than half of all crimes are reported. Hate crime, domestic violence and sexual abuse are particularly hidden. Surveys suggest that two-thirds of people think that crime is now worse now than two years ago.

To tackle fear of crime, communities must have an “accurate understanding of the risk and likelihood of crime”. That suggestion seems to warn against sensational media reporting but the department also admits that the system can improve how it communicates with the public.

“Partnership” is used extensively. This is a common phrase in government documents but has become more relevant since devolution. Justice, social work and education policy are now run by the same government rather than being split with the NIO, which often appeared distant.

Practical examples will include the proposed policing and community safety partnerships and continued support for voluntary groups such as NIACRO. The strategy’s budget is not yet agreed.

Introducing the paper, David Ford described Northern Ireland as a “comparatively safe place to live” but its communities “do not always feel safe”. A long-term approach, dealing with the risk factors that can lead to offending, was also needed. He added: “I firmly believe that shared communities are safer communities.”

Alliance
Justice Minister: David Ford MLA
Justice and Human Rights Spokesman: Stephen Farry MLA

When Alliance took on the portfolio on devolution in April 2010, David Ford argued that a shake-up of the system was needed to ensure “fair justice for all”.

In 2007, Alliance described a fundamental relationship between democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The party has also advocated UK and Irish entry into the EU’s Schengen zone to ensure greater co-operation between police and judicial services. This would include a hot pursuit protocol to enable the PSNI and Garda to cross over into each other’s jurisdictions.

A strong anti-paramilitary line is taken. Its Assembly manifesto suggested specific offences of engaging in paramilitary-style attacks, prosecutions for paramilitary flags under the Terrorism Act 2000 and allowing ‘exiles’ to return.

In its 2010 Westminster manifesto, Alliance pledged to improve the speed and efficiency of justice. A sentencing guidelines council was also proposed. The party emphasised prevention, early intervention, rehabilitation and collaboration between the police and other justice organisations.

Raising the profile of mental health and personality disorder conditions within the criminal justice system was also seen as important, as were the needs of victims and witnesses. At Westminster, it would oppose the permanent storage of the DNA of innocent people without their consent.

DUP
Assembly Justice Spokesman: Lord Morrow MLA
Westminster Justice and Home Affairs Spokesman: William McCrea MP

The DUP claims the devolution of policing and justice “will allow us to adapt our criminal law more quickly than lagging behind England and Wales”.

In 2007, it called for tougher sentencing for crimes against the elderly, causing death by dangerous driving or driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Anti-social behaviour orders needed to be strengthened and enforced more rigorously, it added.

A detailed 2010 Westminster manifesto looked forward to setting funding priorities for the criminal justice system. The party would support extra crime prevention and community safety initiatives, such as CCTV schemes.

Priorities included reducing the number of domestic abuse and knife crime cases as well as drug-related offences. Delays in the criminal justice system and the high number of prisoners on remand were also posing problems.

The prison estate “must improve” and the high number of mental health and personality disorder problems should be tackled. Its European manifesto promised to assess the level of republican support for the police and the rule of law and ensure that paramilitarism is “gone for good”.

Sinn Féin
Assembly Justice Spokesman: Raymond McCartney MLA
Assembly Policing Spokesman: Alex Maskey MLA
Oireachtas Justice Spokesman: Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD

Sinn Féin saw the devolution of policing and justice as a chance to “overcome resistance to change” within the PSNI, Garda and Northern Ireland Office.

In 2007, it demanded effective responses to sectarian, racist and homophobic attacks and violence against women and children.

More funding was sought for community restorative justice schemes. Victims and survivors of domestic violence also required more refuge and housing. It also proposed an all- Ireland register of sex offenders.

The main focus of its 2010 Westminster manifesto was enhancing the accountability, transparency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. However, the party also called for the end of “politically driven” organisations such as MI5 and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Alex Maskey said there should be a civic police service “free from partisan political control or interference” as an alternative.

There should be a total end to the use of plastic bullets and a “branch and root” reform of the Public Prosecution Service, the party stated.

UUP
Justice Spokesman: David McNarry MLA
Policing Spokesman: Basil McCrea MLA

Justice priorities in 2007 included rejecting any reductions in police numbers, support for restorative justice schemes that work fully with the PSNI, electronic tagging and polygraph testing of high-risk sex offenders, and support for robust rehabilitation programmes.

In the general election campaign, the Conservatives and

Unionists vowed that the Chief Constable would have “every resource possible” to protect Northern Ireland from the threat posed by dissident terrorism.

More stop and search powers for the police, to tackle knife crime, were prioritised. The parties also pledged that anyone acting reasonably to stop a crime or apprehend a criminal would not be arrested or prosecuted. They would “back measures to give householders greater protection” if they had to defend themselves against intruders in their homes.

Its European manifesto pressed for mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation, in justice and home affairs policy, and opposed “grand centralising schemes” such as the European Prosecutor.

SDLP
Assembly Justice Spokesman: Alban Maginness MLA
Assembly Policing Spokesman: Dominic Bradley MLA
Westminster Justice and Home Affairs Spokesman: Mark Durkan MP
Youth Justice Spokesman: Councillor Matthew McDermott
The SDLP’s Assembly manifesto proposed an all-Ireland sex offenders register, tagging of dangerous offenders and an end to automatic 50 per cent remission for them. Anti-social behaviour order legislation needed to be reviewed, with ASBOs only used as a last resort.

A review of the prison establishment was also suggested, along with a balanced workforce. As a rule, victims should be given reasons where criminal charges are dropped or not brought. A routinely unarmed police service would be backed up with emergency support units.

In 2010, the SDLP backed a charter of rights for victims of crime along with a review of criminal law. It also supported a sentencing guidelines council and a review of knife crime penalties, and the devolution of drug classification. The PSNI, it contends, should have primary in national security policy rather than MI5. In Europe, the party sought more participation in the European Commission’s Forum on the Prevention of Organised Crime and the EU Crime Prevention Network.

Green
Northern Justice Spokesman: Steven Agnew
Oireachtas Justice Spokesman: Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin

In 2007, the Green Party said it would focus on the reasons for crime instead of dealing simply with the consequences. A “community restorative justice infrastructure” was proposed. The party would also push for “thorough improvements” in the prisons so that the dignity and human rights of detainees are respected. It promised to reduce the number of re-offending prisoners and called for alternatives to prison for convicted offenders.

PUP

The PUP supported increasing the use of restorative justice proposals in its Assembly manifesto and said it would like to see these schemes used more widely within the criminal justice system. It also promised to “work in partnership” with police and local communities to create safer neighbourhoods.

While John Larkin has kept a low public profile since his appointment as Attorney- General, on 25 May last year, his role is a significant addition to the devolved system of government. A local individual is now the Executive’s chief legal advisor and guarding the public interest for the first time in nearly 40 years.

Northern Ireland had 11 Attorneys-General between 1921 and 1972, starting with Richard Best and ending with Basil Kelly. Upon direct rule, the post passed to the Attorney-General for England and Wales.

The 2000 Criminal Justice Review recommended a non-political, independent role for a local Attorney- General. However, this means he has less power than some of his counterparts and has resulted in some calls for reform.

Progress

In one of his first decisions, the AG directed that a fresh coroner’s hearing be held into the killing of Francis Bradley by the SAS in 1986. The families of 11 civilians killed by soldiers in Ballymurphy in 1971 have also submitted a call for a new investigation.

When sworn in on 9 June, Larkin described the independent bar as a “strong and protective force in and for the rule of law.”

In November, Larkin visited the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He has also launched the Living Law programme, designed to give secondary school pupils a “fresh and lively introduction” to law and the justice system.

Larkin has also called for limits on legal fees so that “people of modest means won’t be required to pay the bills of the wealthy”, adding that senior lawyers who had benefitted from “historically very generous” funding should offer pro-bono services.

The Attorney-General is supported by 13 staff and is paid a £197,000 salary, higher than the Prime Minister (£142,000).

His spokesman explained that this was set by the First and deputy First Ministers, against levels of judicial pay.

For comparison, a Lord Justice of Appeal earns £196,707 per year.

Powers

The Attorney General is appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly. Barristers and solicitors “of at least ten years’ standing” are eligible; the term of office lasts five years and is renewable.

At present, his main responsibilities are as follows:

• Chief legal adviser to the Executive (and leading on litigation arising from that advice);

• Referring Assembly legislation which appears to be ‘ultra vires’ (i.e. beyond its powers) to the UK Supreme Court;

• Appointing the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Prosecution Service;

• Guardian of the rule of law i.e. representing the public interest and ensuring that all persons and legal entities are accountable to the law.

As the Attorney-General is unelected, he cannot present legislation or vote in the Assembly. Indeed, the holder is barred from standing for election. During Assembly proceedings, the Attorney- General is free to refuse to answer questions or requests for documents which may prejudice criminal proceedings.

The First and deputy First Ministers have agreed that the Attorney-General’s advice will be sought on the “most important and complex legal matters” facing the Executive and ministers.

Unlike the direct rule Attorney-General, John Larkin has no power to superintend the Public Prosecution Service and cannot, for example, intervene to appeal unduly lenient sentences. “The reason for that isn’t entirely clear to me at least,” he said on his appointment.

The PPS has instead become a non- ministerial department. Its Director consults the Attorney-General on its annual report and amendments to the Code for Prosecutors.

The Criminal Justice Review said that, although the Attorney-General would be non-political, it was necessary to go further and ensure that he did not supervise the PPS. “In other words, there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters,” it recommended.

Before justice was devolved, unduly lenient cases were referred to the Court of Appeal by the direct rule Attorney General. Cases are now referred by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who could be regarded as a party to the proceedings.

SDLP Justice Spokesman Alban Maginness says this situation is “unsatisfactory” and the previous referral system had worked very well.

His Alliance counterpart Stephen Farry is “open” to reviewing the Attorney- General’s powers but adds a note of caution “as the current arrangements have only been in place for a matter of months.”

Appealing of lenient sentences, accountability on the Assembly floor and the transparency of advice could all be considered. Farry suggested that the role could be reconsidered in conjunction with a review of the Public Prosecution Service, a decade on from the Criminal Justice Review.

Purpose

Within the British Isles, Larkin’s role is most similar to his southern counterpart, Paul Gallagher, who sits outside government but can participate in ministerial meetings where required. The Irish Attorney-General is responsible for a limited number of prosecutions for fisheries and extradition offences, unlike his northern neighbour.

The Attorney-General for England and Wales (Dominic Grieve) and the Scottish Lord Advocate (Elish Angiolini) are both ministers.

The Northern Ireland Attorney-General has met his Irish and England and Wales counterparts twice since 9 June.

Brice Dickson, a former Chief Human Rights Commissioner, sees the Attorney- General’s purpose as being “a completely independent guardian of the public interest” within the legal system.

“This means providing impartial advice to the Executive, overseeing the civil and criminal justice systems to ensure they operate fairly, and taking legal proceedings whenever necessary to uphold the public interest in the rule of law,” he continues.

The Attorney-General must also “run a very lean machine” in his or her own office, which should be “completely transparent in explaining its outlays.” Dickson would like to see the Attorney- General having more powers to review the PPS’ activities. He would also advise him to “take steps to ensure that the legal system does not fall into further disrepute on account of the excessive fees that are paid to some lawyers.”

In Dickson’s view, the Attorneys-General from 1921 to 1972 did preserve their independence despite previous connections with the governing party. “I would hope that the current and future AGs would follow that lead in putting political considerations entirely out of their mind when exercising their functions,” he concluded.

Justice Minister links

Alban Maginness questioned what relationship existed between the Justice Minister and the Attorney-General. In response, a Department of Justice spokeswoman said that meetings between the two men had so far been “arranged as required” but she anticipated that these will take place at least quarterly.

“Beyond these meetings there is a great deal of correspondence and informal contact,” the spokeswoman added. The Justice Minister is also required to consult the Attorney-General before making appointments to the Law Commission and before agreeing its work programmes.

As with all ministers, the Justice Minister can seek the Attorney-General’s advice on legal matters and seeks his views on the competence of legislation before it is introduced to the Assembly.

Maginness also emphasised that the Assembly needs to work out how he relates to the Assembly. The Procedures Committee has started an inquiry into this subject, which is on hold until the Department of Justice completes its consultation into the Public Prosecution Service’s accountability. This is due to start early this year.

The devolution of policing and justice brought responsibility for most aspects of law and order to the new Department for Justice. In the nine months since devolution in April 2010 David Ford has introduced his first Justice Bill and presided over 10 consultations.

The Justice Bill passed its second reading in the Assembly on 2 November 2010 and proposes an offender levy to finance a victims’ fund, the integration of community safety and district policing partnerships, and means testing those applying for legal aid.

In addition, reviews are being carried out into prisons and the youth justice system. However, the mistaken release of three prisoners and a dirty protest by republican prisoners at Maghaberry prison have challenged the fledgling department and its Minister.

It is true that there were 3,700 less recorded crimes from April to November 2010 compared to the same seven months in the previous year but crime rates depend on many factors. During 2009-2010 there were also two security related deaths, shooting incidents increased from 25 to 54, bombings from 46 to 50 and paramilitary shootings from 26 to 46. Paramilitary assaults also increased from 41 to 81.

Professor Shadd Maruna, Director of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Queen’s University argues that: “The success of any justice system cannot be measured by crime reduction alone.”

In his opinion, “justice is meant to serve expressive purposes as well as instrumental ones.” He tells agendaNi: “A well functioning justice system is one that is widely perceived as legitimate, fair and just by all sectors of society – even prisoners.”

Maruna sees the devolution of policing and justice to the Executive as “a once-in- a-lifetime opportunity for reinventing justice.”

He adds: “It is a chance to ask the public what they want out of justice and to make the system much more responsive to those needs.”

The current root-and-branch reviews of Northern Ireland’s “not-fit-for-purpose” prison system and the treatment of young people by the justice system “are just two examples of long-overdue changes already happening,” Maruna believes.

Olwen Lyner, Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO), agrees.

“Not only are these [reviews] necessary [and] could lead to change for the better, the Minister has been flexible in his management of them.”

The justice department should have three priorities, according to Lyner.

These are:

• a collaborative criminal justice system where there is consensus about the purpose of the system and resources are directed into resettlement;

• ensuring that all departments recognise that they have “a huge part to play”; and

• influencing public attitudes by ensuring the media present an accurate picture of the criminal justice system based on the facts and “good solid research.”

Policing and justice was devolved to Scotland in 1999. The Scottish Prisons Commission acknowledges that “Scotland locks up more of its people than most other places in Europe.” Despite the high rate of imprisonment, 74 per cent of offenders who serve short sentences in Scottish prisons end up committing another crime within two years.

Lyner and other NGOs have spoken to the Minister about the “clear warnings” from the Scottish example. “There are new bureaucratic and punitive institutions and procedures, a rising moral panic fuelled by politicians and the media, and an emerging battle for the heart and soul of criminal justice policy between practitioners and politicians,” she explains.

For comparison, in 2008 there were 88 prisoners per 100,000 population in Northern Ireland, 153 in England and Wales, 152 in Scotland and 76 in the Republic of Ireland.

Human rights is not a foreign or ultra- liberal concept, according to Basil McCrea. The UUP MLA, who chairs the Policing Board’s Human Rights and Professional Standards Committee, points out that British parliamentarians helped to draw up the European Convention on Human Rights after World War Two. Winston Churchill was among its early supporters.

McCrea states that human rights is a “basic tenet of democracy and civilisation”. The role of the police is to “uphold everybody’s human rights” but “everybody also has human responsibilities.”

The committee’s formal role is to ensure that the PSNI complies with human rights legislation. “Human rights is at the very core now of professional, modern policing,” he adds, “so our job is not just to ensure the compliance but to ensure that is fully embedded in the very culture of the Police Service.”

There is a view that human rights is a “negative” force that “holds back the police from doing a good job”. In its defence, he explains that the police can only “police by consent” and “have to win the hearts and minds of everyone”. The alternative, without rights, would be a police state.

The police have very powerful rights, including the use of force, and can only be given these if there are “corresponding rights on the other side to say: ‘You can’t use these disproportionately.’”

To give a practical example, he looks back to the Ardoyne riots last July. Many people were unhappy that the police “stood on the line and took it” when under attack. However, dissident republicans wanted officers to break ranks and use their batons, for their own publicity.

Following an assessment from the board’s human rights advisor, it unanimously supported the policing operation put in place by the PSNI to deal with this serious disorder. McCrea sums up the board’s key message as: “No, our Police Service is the finest in the world in public order policing. Officers were disciplined, they do things properly and it’s to their credit that they did it.”

Stop and search

Contentious issues on the committee’s agenda include allegations of state collusion and the use of anti-terrorism powers.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allowed officers to search any person or vehicle in a specified area. It was ruled potentially unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in July 2010.

“Whilst in any one individual circumstance it may be right to do it, collectively it actually builds up a wave of people saying: ‘Well, the police are victimising me or being unfair here.’” Some communities then claim that the police are not welcome in their area.

“We’ve said to the police: ‘You have used these other stop and search powers [section 21 and 23 under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007] where you have to have just cause,’” he continues. The PSNI now issues quarterly reports on the number of people who are stopped, the areas in which the searches take place and their frequency.

As a sign of progress, the board’s 2010 Human Rights Report contains five recommendations, compared to 20 in 2009. Its format is now shorter, and the report goes “in tandem” with the thematic inquiries which have been a “really successful innovation”. Each thematic considers a particular subject over four to five months and upcoming inquiries will cover policing with and for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, and the use of stop and search powers.

McCrea emphasises that a thematic is “a process rather than an outcome”. Interested stakeholders put forward their views and the committee then gathers responses from the PSNI. The aim is to get a common agreement, even where the recommendations are challenging. Members also check up on progress, six months and 12 months after a report is made; the committee therefore has a “very good relationship” with its stakeholders.

Young people

The latest thematic review covers young people and policing, and considers anti- social behaviour, police powers and alternative disposals. However, as it makes clear, young people and anti-social behaviour are sometimes unfairly linked. In Operation Exposure, the police published photographs of suspected rioters after the Ardoyne riot but the board emphasised that pictures of young people should not be used in this way. Publication can stigmatise young people and lead to them being routinely identified.

Groups of young people are sometimes seen as a problem but the committee says that other activities must be provided for them, as an alternative.

“Young people are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators of crime,” he remarks. “Quite often, the facts fly in the face of public opinion and what we have to do is try and explain: ‘No, this is not correct.’”

The report was launched with a direct internet feed and is linked into new media, so young people can send in their opinions as well.

“It is really important that our society realises that no one is allowed to victimise anybody for whatever reason,” he states, “that you are not allowed to pick on the young or the old or the infirm, or people of a particular religious background, or people of a particular sexuality. And the police are there to go and support everybody.”

On the professional standards side, the Board also plans to look at incivility i.e. where a police officer is rude to a member of the public. It can take up to 13 other contacts with the police to make up for one poor engagement with a police officer.

McCrea admits that some people have a “difficult relationship with the police for historic reasons” but thinks that the complaints process could be improved. The current culture is to send all complaints straight to the Police Ombudsman’s office. Instead, the committee is keen to find ways of resolving problems locally, perhaps through an apology or clearing up a misunderstanding.

Supervisors and commanders need to make sure that officers understand that policing is a “service to the community” and therefore must build relationships.

Overall, McCrea sums up the committee’s relationship with the police as “positively challenging” and says the board is seen as a world leader in how it handles these issues.

There are disagreements but he adds: “I think we have won their respect, that when we make statements they are well- informed and for the better interests of everybody, and that we do take some time to ensure that our points are properly understood.

“We will not, as a committee, shy away from putting out challenging statements but we will always give the police the opportunity to explain the background or to come up with alternatives or to address the various issues.”

The ultimate outcome sought by the committee is “a society where everybody feels that the police are there to protect them, regardless of background, and that if you go to them you get things sorted out. And if you do that, you get a lot more intelligence and information coming forward.”

Committee members

Chair: Basil McCrea MLA Vice-Chair: Mary McKee Martina Anderson MLA Jonathan Bell MLA Rosaleen Moore

Gearóid Ó hEara Alastair Ross MLA Suneil Sharma

Prison policy was, for many years, inseparable from the Troubles. The hunger strikes and the early releases after the Good Friday Agreement turned the media’s attention on the Maze. Thirty prison officers and other staff have been killed due to their work, with many others injured or threatened.

Now, in changed times, the Prison Service is under pressure to reform, after mounting criticism of how it works. Northern Ireland currently has three prisons:

• Maghaberry (high security);

• Magilligan (medium and low security);

• Hydebank Wood young offenders centre (also includes women’s unit).

“A review of the conditions of detention, management and oversight of all prisons” was promised in the Hillsborough Agreement. It was formally announced on 21 June 2010 and started work on 21 July. David Ford hoped that the review’s work would provide a “route map” for the Prison Service’s future direction.

The review was split into two stages. The first report, due last autumn, will focus on the widely criticised regime at Maghaberry and take previous reports into account. It will also look at development plans and the Prison Service’s programme for workforce reform.

A second report will take a broader view of other prisons and the service as a whole. It would therefore consider Magilligan’s replacement, a possible women’s prison and the future development of the service, including its future composition, and its culture and ethos.

The first report will now be published this month, with second one due over the summer.

Previous reports into the Prison Service have been strongly critical, with Criminal Justice Inspection describing it as “struggling to make the change from a traditional ‘turnkey’ prison service” to one which focuses on resettlement and rehabilitation.

These have highlighted the need for reform but also put a large administrative burden on the service. Nearly 1,200 recommendations have been put forward, of which 600 were outstanding in July 2009. The service also has 28 different action plans.

CJI’s December 2010 report examined why it has been so hard to deliver “real and sustained improvement on the ground.”

Inspectors said that the security-focused culture developed during the Troubles had been “difficult to shake off” but also acknowledged the continuing threat, who had named governors and staff as targets.

Status

In summary, Northern Ireland’s prison system is small and expensive, with the Troubles forming the backdrop to how it works. The number of prisoners reached a peak of 3,000 in 1979. Paramilitaries now account for 4 per cent of prisoners.

Northern Ireland would otherwise have had a relatively small number of inmates. It had just under 700 prisoners in the late 1960s. The province sent 88 people to prison for every 100,000 residents in 2008, which compares to 76 in the Republic, 152 in Scotland, and 153 in England and Wales.

Imprisoning people for unpaid fines has also filled cells. Of the 3,161 people who entered prison in 2009-2010, 1,778 were fine defaulters who were jailed briefly. This normally only accounted for 23 prisoners at any one time.

Despite having 1,883 uniformed officers, staffing levels in prisons were often “insufficient”. Officers work alternate weekends, so only half the staff are available at that time.

Workforce

Inspectors found a “disconnect” between Prison Service headquarters and individual prisons, and “destructive” industrial relations, which were reportedly worse at Maghaberry than elsewhere.

The Prison Officers Association (POA) had an “all-pervasive influence” throughout the system and no one could recall a dispute which it had lost. This so- called “veto on change” was partly due to local agreements it had negotiated with governors over the years. In response,

the POA said that management was weak and it was representing its members.

No main grade prison officers have been recruited since 1994 and few are leaving the service. The Prison Service says that there has been no need to recruit new officers, due to the Good Friday Agreement releases and the closure of two prisons: Crumlin Road and the Maze. Other officers have been recruited since 1994 to perform specific roles e.g. night custody. The basic prison officer salary is £37,364 in Northern Ireland and £28,890 in England and Wales. The staff-prisoner ratio (1.14) is high compared to elsewhere while the cost per prisoner place is the highest in the UK (£94,805).

The “close nature” of the service made it hard to manage. Junior and senior officers had lived and socialised in “safe” areas during the Troubles, and shared the same cars for security reasons.

At Maghaberry, officers had 129 rest days per year, compared to the national norm of 96. Prison Service sick absence stood at 12.7 days per head, compared to 8.2 in the PSNI, and cost £4.6 million per annum. If staff shortages occurred, officers would stop working on resettlement or education.

Security and control of prisoners was seen as “paramount” so officers kept their distance from prisoners. Prison officers, though, are expected to be a good example to inmates by modelling good behaviour and building up trust.

Officers found it difficult to work in the “two worlds” of security and care for prisoners. Some dismissed probation officers and psychologists as “fluffies” and “do-gooders” with too much emphasis being put on rehabilitation.

Reaction

Prison Officers Association spokesman Finlay Spratt said the CJI report was “sensationalised” and put the blame on managers and “centralisation”. Changes had to be made but not by “quangos” or “armchair generals”.

The SDLP wants to see a Patten-style reform. Alban Maginness has called on David Ford to “face down any vested interests”. Sinn Féin demands “root-and- branch reform”. Raymond McCartney condemned the POA’s “conflict culture” and said the number of highly-paid prison officers was unacceptable.

This is strongly rejected by the DUP. Lord Morrow said it is “not credible to draw an exact comparison between prisons on the mainland and in Northern Ireland.” He wants any reform to be “tailored” to the province’s own circumstances.

While the UUP believes that prison reform is “much needed”, David McNarry said that “the anxieties are whether the requirements, which are massive, are able to be costed into the departmental four- year budget plan.” He adds: “If not, reform will prove incredibly difficult.”

With reform having been promised, delivering it will be one of the highest priorities this year for David Ford and the Prison Service’s new Director-General, Colin McConnell. Any change must come at the same time as the planned budget for running costs drops from £149.9 million to £114 million over the next four years.

Key stats (2009 – 2010)

Review members

Dame Anne Owers
(former HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, England and Wales)

Paul Leighton
(former PSNI Deputy Chief Constable)

Clodach McGrory
(barrister and Parole Commissioner)

Fergus McNeill
(senior lecturer, Glasgow School of Social Work)

Phil Wheatley
(Former HM Prison Service Director-General, governor and prison officer)

The age that children are held legally accountable for crime and the way they are treated within the justice system are being examined as part of a major review.

Last February’s Hillsborough Agreement set out plans to review “how children and young people are processed at all stages of the criminal justice system, including detention, to ensure compliance with international obligations and best practice”.

In Northern Ireland, England and Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is currently set at 10. In Scotland, it was raised from eight to 12 in 2009.

Announcing the review in November, David Ford said that “to reshape the justice system, it is important to take a critical look at where we are and what we need to do to further refine and improve our approaches to addressing youth offending.”

Professor Phil Scraton, Chair of Criminology at Queen’s University, told agendaNi that after looking at the terms laid out in the Hillsborough Agreement he “isn’t sure that the way the review has been established and set up will meet those demands and expectations”.

One of his main criticisms is the extent of the review’s impartiality. He highlighted that when the review team was initially set up it had three people, one of whom was the director of the Youth Justice Agency. While the member has now withdrawn, Scraton claims that “the very intention of putting a member of the Youth Justice Agency on the board, and in terms of who is actually servicing the review, brings into question the independence of the review team”. He is also critical that there was no consultation process before the review began.

The current age of criminal responsibility in the province is “very low”, according to the academic. He believes that lifting the age of criminal responsibility is a starting point towards decriminalising young people’s behaviour. Scraton recommended that the age should be raised to 14 or 15 but said that “there is absolutely no justification for having it below 12”.

When children commit acts that could be defined as crimes, Scraton believes it is necessary to understand the reasons behind the behaviour.

“We are in a climate of intolerance against young people and children. The legacy of conflict we have in Northern Ireland creates a dynamic whereby we tend to be more severe and punitive when it comes to children and young people.”

He claimed that giving a child a criminal record is not the answer as they may not have full capacity; instead a welfare disposition should be adopted. This would mean decriminialising the behaviour by understanding the reasons for the child’s actions, bringing the individual to terms with what they have done and intervening to ensure that the actions are not repeated.

An inter-departmental approach is vital, said Scraton, as youth justice cannot be detached from other aspects of children’s lives. Education, he remarked, is an essential part of early intervention. Healthcare is also an important factor.

“We have one of the weakest mental health service provisions for children and young people in Europe. It is quite incredible that in a society that should spend a lot of time, effort and money on supporting children and young people who have been affected by conflict, we have a situation where that is weak.” Scraton believes this is one of the main reasons that lead to children and young people ending up in trouble.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said David Ford has made it clear that the review is “comprehensive and fully independent and will operate under broad and flexible terms of reference”.

He added: “In establishing the review he has listened to concerns in relation to perceived independence and timescale and has responded positively on both counts. Executive ministers have nominated representatives for their department to inform the review.”

Introduced as an alternative to paramilitary punishments, restorative justice schemes are often the first port-of-call for working class communities that still remain wary of the PSNI. Meadhbh Monahan reports.

“There is an appetite to bring paramilitarism back,” warns Debbie Watters. She is the project manager for the Greater Shankill branch of Northern Ireland Alternatives, one of five community-based restorative justice schemes operating in loyalist areas in Belfast and Bangor. Watters tells agendaNi: “The view is that when the boys were sorting it out, a lid was kept on [crime] and young people had fear.”

Many working-class communities still mistrust the PSNI because it has, according to her, failed to reduce levels of crime. “Young people have no fear [of police or paramilitaries] anymore. There’s a gang culture called FAP (f*** all paramilitaries) growing in Belfast that says: ‘we’ll show you we can do whatever we want and we don’t fear you.’”

This “can’t be allowed to happen”, Watters contends. She adds that the role of community-based restorative justice schemes is becoming more important in keeping communities safe.

Her counterpart on the Falls is Jim McCarthy, the Belfast co-ordinator of Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI). He adds: “There is still a mistrust of the police. Some cops would be just as reluctant; sure you can’t blame them.”

CRJI operates in 11 republican areas of Belfast and Derry. McCarthy has found that republican communities still want “advice and support” in dealing with the criminal justice system. His experience has taught him that “no matter how many liaison officers [the PSNI] have, [locals] want to speak to someone in the community first.”

He reveals: “It’s nearly a weight lifted off their shoulders when you say: ‘I think you should go to the police with that.’”

There are a total of 16 community-based restorative justice schemes operating in Northern Ireland. They receive fundingfrom the Department for Social Development’s neighbourhood renewal scheme (£1,179,000 since 2008), the Department of Justice (£300,000 since 2007 matched by Atlantic Philanthropies) and the Housing Executive. Northern Ireland Alternatives’ five schemes also receive funding from the International Fund for Ireland.

As former prisoners are involved, these schemes have been controversial. Indeed, McCarthy claims that the current Social Development Minister Alex Attwood “is one of our strongest opponents”. The Minister responded that when he was invited by McCarthy to join CRJI, he raised “critical issues” but did not receive a reply.

“I have properly argued that strict rules and oversight is required of community restorative justice. That should continue,” Attwood told agendaNi.

“The risks of wrong and abuse must not happen again. Restorative justice as a concept is very important going forward, but its community practice must be closely monitored.”

He concluded: “I am not an ‘opponent’ but a considered advocate of restorative justice done properly.”

While Alternatives had the police and statutory agencies on its steering group, CRJI only began to work directly with the police in 2008, after Sinn Fé␣in accepted civic policing in 2007. Both schemes had to sign a strict protocol in 2007, stating that they would report all criminal offences via the police to the PPS, which will then refer low level offences back to schemes.

Alternatives

Watters explains that when life sentence prisoners came out of prison under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, they started asking: “If we are no longer fighting our enemy and using violence, why are we using summary justice processes [paramilitary attacks] within our own community?”

When talked to in their “cool, calm, collected space,” paramilitaries reported that they didn’t want to carry out attacks but “felt pressurised by the community”, Watters says. At the beginning, Alternatives’ vision was to “heal relations at a local level between victims and offenders but [also] at a vertical level between community, police and the statutory agencies.”

The first referrals to Alternatives were from paramilitaries and dealt with young people involved in anti-social behaviour. “It had to be that way at the beginning because we were there as an alternative,” Watters states.

In one of Alternatives’ programmes, a young person signs a personal contract which commits them to modules such as restorative practices, victim awareness and cognitive skills. This can include a face-to-face meeting with the victim if both parties agree.

As the years went on, the number of referrals from the community and statutory agencies increased as communities “cut paramilitaries out of the equation”, Watters reports. “We basically said to paramilitaries that ‘Once you send a person to us; that’s it. We can’t report back to you, we can’t let you know how they are doing and we definitely won’t let you know if they don’t engage’.”

Now, Alternatives is seen as “a community resource”. People approach them with “absolutely any issue”. Watters claims: “The perception that we were an arm of a paramilitary organisation doesn’t exist anymore.”

CRJI

In the early 1990s, McCarthy and other Belfast republicans approached the republican paramilitaries asking them to “make a space” for the community workers to solve disputes.

“Not only did the people in our area not ring the police, they had no dealings with the state what so ever. They were always very wary of the Government,” McCarthy reflects.

CRJI initially operated informally, getting victims and offenders of all ages together to work out their differences. “It was probably restorative justice but we didn’t have a name for it,” he recalls. Statutory agencies also worked with that scheme “under the radar”.

Following research by academics from Queen’s University into punishment beatings and the operation of the informal criminal justice system in greater Belfast, restorative justice training was provided to Alternatives and CRJI. The latter opened its first office in 1998.

McCarthy recalls: “The way we had envisaged it was dealing with low-level anti-social behaviour and crime but as soon as the door opened we were swamped with everything [from murder to car parking disputes].”

In 2004 CRJI was coming under increased pressure from the Government to sign a protocol. Despite CRJI members believing that the police needed to be involved, he claims that “the political climate didn’t exist in the community” therefore the group refused to formalise its relationship with the state.

“We thought [working with the police] would be our death call but at the same time we knew well before Sinn Fé␣in held their special ard fheis on policing that they would accept it so we were going into community halls, getting people ready and creating the circumstances for police involvement,” he explains.

A Criminal Justice Inspectorate report into CRJI’s latest Newry and South Armagh office in October 2009 says that “the relationship between police and the scheme is one that is developing and which holds promise for the future.”

It adds that the South Armagh area “still presents major security considerations for local police [with] paramilitary and organised criminal influences in the area inhibiting the development of normal relationships.”

Protocol

The schemes “reluctantly” signed the protocol in 2007. Although Alternatives and CRJI have a good working relationship now, tensions arose when Alternatives had to sign the protocol despite their collaboration with the police from the beginning.

“If CRJI had never been around, there wouldn’t have been a protocol,” Watters states. “It was a game we had to play.” She concedes that “an awful lot has changed.” But initially, “the system ran very scared from us.”

Both Watters and McCarthy see the protocol as “too restrictive”, mainly because the schems are required to establish an admission of guilt.

In response to an FOI request, the PSNI told agendaNi that since CRJI became accredited in 2008 it has referred one protocol case to the PSNI and since Alternatives became accredited in 2007 it has referred 10 protocol cases to the PSNI; four in 2009 and six in 2010. The majority of the groups’ work is on informal cases, therefore PPS referrals rarely occur.

McCarthy gives an example of a physical fight that broke out between two women neighbours over their children. Both women came to CRJI separately and when they were told a crime had been carried out and would have to be reported to the police, they were surprised and wanted to sit down together with CRJI as mediators.

“We done the paper work and this dragged on for six or seven weeks and had nearly sorted itself out by the time [the PPS] got back to us,” McCarthy states.

The protocol made cases “far more difficult” because the schemes have to establish an admission of guilt. “That’s investigating, which we don’t do,” he claims.

Watters agrees. “The problem is, if the police had the evidence to process that crime, they wouldn’t need the protocol. It comes into operation when the police have no knowledge of the crime. We are handing it over with an admission of guilt because there is no evidential foundation to process it.”

McCarthy recalls a riot which resulted in houses being destroyed and people fighting in the streets. When the police riot squad arrived McCarthy was called by both families involved. A police contact told him which six people they wanted and the charges against them. “I visited both families over the course of a few hours. My advice was to go to their solicitor. The cops pulled back to the fringes and they presented themselves at the station the next day. For me that’s proper protocol. You are just trying to keep the peace, keep it settled and work with the cops,” McCarthy says. He adds that he was thanked by the police because it saved them money.

Both community workers, who have acted as the go-between between the community and the police on many occasions, believe that the protocol doesn’t work for local communities and have requested that it be reviewed.

“I think they will be open to reviewing it,” Watters contends.

A Department of Justice spokesman confirmed that a review is scheduled to take place in 2011.

Funding is a key priority for Watters and McCarthy. “We need core funding,” she states, adding that if DSD’s Neighbourhood Renewal scheme is cut, Alternatives and CRJI “will be in major diffs.”

A forum in practice
Watters and McCarthy advocate a facility, like the Community Justice Centre in Liverpool, where different statutory agencies operate under one roof with a focus on restorative practices. Presided over by Judge David Fletcher, all the agencies are co- located in the centre, housed in a former primary school in a rough estate. Other services include drug and alcohol workers, debt counselling, housing advice and mediation.

“As opposed to just criminal justice, it sees justice as community safety, good mental health and having just and safe communities. It’s the essence of restorative justice,” Watters states. However, a similar facility for Northern Ireland is 10 to 15 years down the line, “if it happens at all,” she believes. McCarthy admires the way in which “the whole emphasis is on problem-solving rather than punishment.” He believes that people need to understand how the justice system works. “It’s a big piece of work but I think it’s important,” he concludes.

Introducing their joint strategy in December, PSNI Chief Constable Matt Baggott and then Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy explained that “many instances of terrorism, serious and organised crime, and local crime have been prevented” by sharing information, intelligence and joint operations.

“This has, undoubtedly saved lives, while ensuring those involved in such activity are identified and brought to justice,” said Murphy.

Baggott added that in the current security and economic climate it is “even more pertinent for police officers to be able to utilise the experience, knowledge and, technological capabilities available across both jurisdictions, to the best possible effect.”

The two law enforcement agencies have formalised their work together because, increasingly, criminals are trying to stay one step ahead of the law. Crime “strikes fear” into the heart of communities and “knows no boundaries,” they stated.

A joint Garda-PSNI tasking and co- ordination group will be established, as well as a strategy to maximise the safety of officers living and working in the border region. The existing co-operation on police visibility in border regions will be “underpinned” by detailed strategies that will be subject to review.

There will be greater co-ordination between the PSNI and Garda along the border. Joint operations will be more frequent in order to ensure more effective and visible policing and efficient use of resources. A multi-agency immigration strategy will be created to build on existing co-operation and a memorandum of understanding on the sharing of police equipment will be drawn up.

Legislation will be examined in order to “further enhance” the police services’ ability to work together to detect crime. The effectiveness of information-sharing on sex offenders and the use of automatic number plate recognition will also be reviewed. A memorandum of understanding in relation to sharing DNA, fingerprint and footprint information and the guidance manual for cross-border investigations will be finalised. In addition, Garda and PSNI radio systems will be inter-operable and a joint disaster planning protocol will be established.

Matt Baggott was “deeply indebted” to his Garda colleagues for their daily level of support and co-operation.

The Republic’s Justice Minister Dermot Ahern, from Dundalk, welcomed the strategy saying: “Those of us who hail from the border area understand better than most the importance of ensuring that the border does not present a barrier to the well-being and quality of life of those who reside on either side.” He especially praised the strategy’s commitment to accountability and continuous improvement.

Northern Justice Minister David Ford added that the strategy reinforces the commitment to ensuring that policing co- operation on both sides of the border continues at the highest level. He said that while it is “inevitable” that the strategy will focus on the terrorist threat, it also “shows the breadth of co-operation that exists across the full range of policing areas” and that both services will use all tools available to them to “ensure that those who seek to exploit the border for criminal ends will not succeed.”

However, the Chair of the Assembly’s Justice Committee, Lord Maurice Morrow is conscious of the fact that “throughout the Troubles we were told that co-operation between the then RUC and the Garda couldn’t be better and now we are being told again that it’s better than ever.”

The MLA, who represents Fermanagh and South Tyrone, adds: “I wonder if it is just a convenient thing to say?”

Morrow concedes: “I think [the cross- border policing strategy] is good and healthy in the pursuit of criminals as long as the sharing of information is transparent and it recognises there are two territories.”

Despite major efforts to tackle avoidable delay, the length of time it takes the justice system to process people through court here is still considerably longer than that of England and Wales, according to a report on the subject.

Statistics from the Public Prosecution Service show that in 2009-2010, out of a possible 75,887 cases, 21,654 ended with no prosecution. Some 20,059 of these did not proceed because they did not pass the evidential test, while 1,595 did not pass the public interest test.

The Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI) Northern Ireland report revealed last year that current timescales within the system were too long. It found that on average it took 10 months for a young person on a summons case to pass through the criminal justice system in 2009-2010.

The report focuses on avoidable or unnecessary delay, when cases are “stalled by bureaucratic inefficiencies, outdated practices and wasted effort”.

Chief Inspector Dr Michael Maguire called for immediate improvements in the system: “Delays continue to occur at each stage of the criminal justice process, which negatively impacts on victims, witnesses and defendants and undermines their confidence in the criminal justice system.”

He said that the quality and timelines of files being submitted by the PSNI to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) needed to improve. The PSNI would also need to improve overall case timescales, aid PPS decision-making and help tackle the causes of court adjournments, he stated.

Maguire advised that all the agencies within the criminal justice system should “work more collaboratively with each other to ensure cases reach court more quickly and are ready to proceed when they get there”.

Law Society Chief Executive Alan Hunter says that delay in the system is a problem. However, he claims that there are already some signs of improvement: “I think the organisations which administer the criminal justice system are now talking to each other and working to find out what the problems are and how to overcome those problems.”

Hunter sees a particular difficulty with delays in the youth justice system and argues that it is “in everyone’s interest that those issues are brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.”

In terms of youth justice, there are several agencies involved and “more options open” so the process itself “naturally takes longer”. In general, factors such as the unavailability of witnesses, further information being required, or evidence emerging “quite late in the day” all add to the problem.

He claims that in certain cases “the criminal justice agencies could make evidence and information available at an earlier stage than perhaps happens”.

Consequences

The CJI report identified that the impact of delay can be “severe for victims and witnesses and can undermine the quality of justice”. The quality of evidence can also decline over time, it states, which could also put victims and witnesses “under additional pressure in court”.

Hunter comments that there is a more personal impact of delay: “For the victim, it prolongs the issue. They can’t get closure on it and there’s always uncertainty and a degree of stress that comes with something taking longer than it might”. He highlights that the defendant’s life is also put on hold for a period of time.

The financial cost of avoidable delay is also considered to be substantial but so far a detailed examination has not been carried out.

In order to speed up the system, Hunter says several options should be considered. A fee regime for payments in court cases could be an option. This would mean that there would be an “all-in fee” for dealing with cases and, irrespective of the reasons for delay, the solicitor would get the same fee. “That essentially means there’s every incentive from a financial point of view to get the case progressed quickly,” he comments.

The introduction of statutory time limits is also something which is being considered, says Hunter. At present, there are no legal time limits in place as to when a court case has to be carried out. If implemented, this would mean that there would be a legally binding timeframe set out.

He sees this as a positive step which would “recognise the human rights of the defendants” as well as “giving the victim the reassurance of a timeline”. There are already statutory time limits in place in Scotland and Wales. However, Hunter argues that if the process were implemented “it would be important that it is tailored to this jurisdiction”.

The CJI report advises that the desired outcome of any improvements to the system is not necessarily speed, it is “improved justice”.

Reason for no prosecution in court cases

Source: Public Prosecution Service