Debate contribution: Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 11 March 2024.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

11 March 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4269506

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023, which is SR 2023/138. The motion is that the order will be approved. Two years ago, I moved a similar motion for approval on 1 March 2022. On that day, I did not anticipate that we would have no opportunity in the intervening period to bring forward alternative legislation in a Bill. It remains my intention and, indeed, my strong preference to make new primary provision for the use of live links for this jurisdiction through the Assembly, and I plan to do so using the first Bill that my Department plans to introduce to the Assembly. The modernisation of justice Bill will be introduced in the coming months, and, with the support of the Assembly, we anticipate that alternative live-link provisions will be in force by 2026. In the interim, we are compelled to rely on these provisions as a temporary measure.

Article 2 of the order extends the provisions that allow courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland to receive evidence wholly or in part using audio or videoconferencing systems, but primarily video. Those systems are commonly referred to as live links. They facilitate the wider provision of remote evidence, as well as disposing of mentions or hearings that can include matters such as first appearances and bail applications. The extension, which covers the period from September 2023 to March 2024, was to allow us to maintain access to provisions that have proved to be an essential element of the toolkit for addressing the backlog of cases that accrued during the pandemic.

I fully understand why some Members are concerned about continuing to rely on the Coronavirus Act, and I agree that that is far from ideal. However, I have to balance that against the needs of court users, including victims of crime. The current model of live-link provisions has a particular importance for the criminal courts. The most recent update on criminal court recovery in January 2024, which is based on management information on the number of defendants actively in the court system, shows that, despite considerable efforts, there are approximately 64% more defendants in the Crown Court and approximately 43% more defendants in the Magistrates' Court, adult and youth, than there were on 1 March 2020. In the absence of these provisions, we would have to default to the pre-existing legislation, which is much more restrictive in the category of witness and the range of hearings to which it can be applied. More to the point, other than witnesses who meet the existing test to avail themselves of special measures, the pre-existing provisions in the criminal courts mainly concern the facility for a witness other than the defendant to appear remotely, or for the defendant himself or herself to appear remotely. The latter requires the defendant to consent. For witnesses other than the defendant, the available test is less generous to the victim and witnesses. It focuses on the efficient administration of justice and allows the defendant to challenge the use of live links, including on grounds such as their availability, the importance of their evidence and that the defendant considers that the live link would inhibit the defence from effectively testing that evidence. That would be a backward step in meeting the needs of victims and witnesses. During the previous mandate, all members of the Executive expressed support for not only a six-month extension in March 2022 but the proposed additional extensions that were identified as being required to allow time for a public consultation to take place and new provisions to be developed for inclusion in an Assembly Bill. The Justice Committee also signalled its support. To give a bit of the history of the provisions: since as far back as the 2015 Programme for Government, the plan has been to redesign and optimise public service delivery models. Events in 2020 simply required us to accelerate the digital modernisation programme that was under way in the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and invest in technology needed to maintain the throughput of cases. It would be wasteful, therefore, not to optimise the investment that has already been made in the technology, especially where it can help to avoid unnecessary delay in disposing of matters before the court that the judiciary consider suitable for a live link. At the height of the pandemic, when footfall was restricted, the number of connections averaged over 70,000 per month. Today, there are, on average, approximately 30,000 connections per month. However, that is still substantially more than was the case before 2020, when there were fewer than 100 connections per month. I am therefore extremely reluctant to lose the availability of that enhanced digital court environment, which supports the needs of court users and is based on the judiciary determining what is in the best interests of justice, rather than being dependent on the defendant's consent. We have conducted a series of engagement exercises since November 2021. The responses on each occasion demonstrated overwhelming support for extending those provisions while the justice system is still recovering. On each occasion that we have considered making an extension, a review has been conducted of the equality, data and rural impact, and our assessment has been updated where appropriate. There has also been strong support for new primary provision to be made locally for the use of live links in the future. The benefits that are to be gained from the wider use of live links in the justice system are recognised across these islands. Greater use of live videoconferencing or TV links can reduce distress for some participants. Remote attendance can allow professional witnesses, such as police officers, social workers or medical experts, to continue working while they wait to be called to give their evidence. It can also provide a saving in legal aid costs, substantially reduce our carbon footprint and assist in speeding up our justice system. I hope that, like me, the Assembly will see the order not only as a critical component of justice recovery but as a modernisation of the justice system. Little has changed to undermine the rationale for the approach that was agreed previously with the Executive and the Justice Committee, save that we are, regrettably, two years later than I intended in progressing the Bill. I commend the approval —

I will indeed.

Yes, it does, and I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that this is the first of a series of extensions that we will need in order to maintain efficacy in the system while we bring forward legislation. On that note, I commend the order to the Assembly.

I thank the Member for giving way. I am aware that that concern was raised at the Committee. I want to reassure the Committee and, indeed, the Chair and Deputy Chair about that point. It is the Department's intention to share an early draft of the regulation that we intend to bring through the legislative amendment. That will, I hope, allow the Committee to take evidence on that matter as well. It is simply to do with the finalising of drafting and the resource available, which mean that it will be delayed beyond the point at which the Committee starts its consideration. However, we hope to be able to share an early draft so that you can consult on that too.

1,251 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:46 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification