My column of two weeks ago on the British government's proposals for restorative justice in Northern Ireland evoked a response from the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, David Hanson, on the Irish Times letters page of Friday, January 27th.
I have to say that the evasive and misleading character of his response has served only to deepen my concern about this matter. And that concern has been greatly intensified by the serious worries expressed about this restorative justice issue in the 1,400-word section of the IMC Report dealing with this issue - none of which appeared in the two pages that The Irish Times devoted to this subject last Thursday.
The Minister's letter should be viewed against the background of these points, none of which he has contested:
1. The deputy director of the Community Restorative Justice body (CRJ) was convicted of the murder of two British corporals after they strayed into a funeral in Belfast.
2. Caitríona Ruane of Sinn Féin announced two years ago the setting up by Sinn Féin of these "restorative justice groups" in Co Down, specifically "in order to offer an alternative to the PSNI". The CRJ is now operating 14 of these groups in Northern Ireland, and more appear to be planned - with desultory attempts being made to extend their system to our State, particularly Donegal. (Moreover, this week on Newsnight CRJ project director Jim Auld finally gave the game away by saying: "If we were to agree to have a relationship with the PSNI, then we would be putting ourselves out of business.")
3. The original draft guidelines were not shown to the Policing Board of Northern Ireland or to the political parties, but only to the CRJ and to its loyalist opposite number, Northern Ireland Alternatives.
4. There is no provision for an overall regulatory body for these schemes, or for an independent complaints body, and the official Criminal Justice Inspectorate does not have power to look into individual cases or to call for persons or papers.
5. About half the contact names given on leaflets issued by some of these 14 schemes are those of people with IRA records.
In his letter to The Irish Times the Minister says that "the draft guidelines that I published last month unambiguously specify the involvement of the police and other statutory criminal justice organisations in the organisation of community-based schemes". (My italics.)
What the guidelines actually say is: "When a community-based scheme becomes aware of an offence or an offender, it will communicate promptly either to a dedicated officer or to an identified officer of the PBNI (Probation Board Northern Ireland) or the YJA (Youth Justice Agency)." (My italics again!)
The substitution of "and" for "either/or" in the Minister's letter was clearly designed to mislead. And the use of the word "unambiguously" in that sentence is the reverse of the truth. Incidentally, the McCartney case has shown how the availability of channels alternative to the PSNI can be used to pervert justice by preventing witnesses being asked pertinent questions by the police.
The second paragraph of the Minister's response asserts that "it is simply untrue to say that the Northern Ireland Office rejected proposals by the PSNI requiring restorative justice scheme to co-operate directly with police". (His insertion into his response of the word "directly", which I did not use, is an evident attempt to deny what has not been asserted - a standard political trick.)
But he does not deny that the PSNI sought the introduction of such a provision: the SDLP was informed by the PSNI that this was the case. If the NIO did not reject this request, who decided to reject it? And what has since led the PSNI to feel it necessary to accept guidelines which omit this provision?
Finally, the Minister says that "no CRJ project will be eligible to receive government funding for its activities unless they sign up to, implement and adhere to the guidelines".
A less contorted way of putting this would be to say: "Because the British government proposes to allow these schemes to operate even if they won't co-operate with the PSNI, they will be entitled to receive funding from that government."
In the light of all this it is not surprising that all parties in Northern Ireland except Sinn Féin should now suspect that some kind of understanding exists between Tony Blair and Sinn Féin on this issue - one that is potentially dangerous to Northern Ireland and to our neighbouring state. British denials have failed to carry conviction with Northern politicians. Although the question of British government policy towards the CRJ and its restorative justice schemes is, of course, outside its terms of reference, the Independent Monitoring Commission has nevertheless set out its very serious worries about the present situation with respect to restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland.
The IMC of course recognises - as did I in my article two weeks ago - that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland restorative justice arrangements have a potentially valuable role to play.
But it goes on to add that "restorative justice must never be a cover for the paramilitary groups, whereby they are able to continue to exercise an unhealthy influence under a more respectable label. The schemes must be open as well as accountable, including by having procedures for individual complaints, arrangements to ensure that only suitable people are employed, oversight and external inspection, and an unambiguous relationship with the criminal justice system as a whole."
All of these requirements are, in fact, missing from the existing CRJ schemes and also, on close inspection, are absent from the proposed British government guidelines.
The IMC goes on to say that it has been told of a number of instances of the present arrangements "being invoked as a means of continuing to exercise paramilitary control within communities. . . Individuals may be subjected to threats or to improper pressure. . . We believe that there are some people - who may or may not be personally associated with community restorative justice - who in some instances use it as a cover for the exercise of paramilitary justice, or who allow people to think they do so."
"This is exactly what we had previously said must not be allowed to happen. . . We do not doubt it is happening and we believe that it delays the firm establishment of a 'culture of lawfulness'. . . The more sinister and worrying interpretation is that it represents a deliberate tactic on behalf of paramilitaries to find new means of exerting their control now that violence or other crude threats are less open to them."
These are the IMC's words, not mine.
I cannot believe the information set out above is not known to the Irish Government. My question is this: has concern about this issue been conveyed by our Government to the British government and, if so, has it been conveyed with sufficient vigour? And why has this issue not been pressed more strongly by the Opposition?
This scheme, as at present constituted, represents a potential long-term threat to democracy in Ireland - North and South.