Jim Allister KC: Naomi Long ignored my amendments and warnings on the Gillen sex trial laws, and already the problems are obvious

Jim Allister MLA KC blamed the former justice minister Ms Long for opposing amendments to the so-called Gillen proposals, which Mr Allister – an experienced criminal barrister – said were extreme.

On Thursday, when the new laws came into effect, the News Letter reported on the sweeping nature of the Gillen changes – which are named after a 2019 review by the judge Sir John Gillen of the handling of sex offence trials after two rugby players were acquitted of charges including rape and assault the year before. A mixed gender jury found the players not guilty within four hours of deliberation after a nine-week trial, yet protestors gathered carrying placards saying: ‘I believe her’ [the complainant].

The changes include barring the public from attending such court trials, and prohibiting a suspect from being identified until they are charged. If not charged they will have anonymity for life and 25 years after death.

Yesterday we reported the Society of Editors saying that the new laws would have prevented reporting of allegations against the broadcaster Jimmy Savile in the province, whose multiple sex crimes only emerged after his death in 2012.

Dawn Alford, executive director of the society, said the anonymity laws were “an affront to open justice”.

"The media has a duty to investigate and report on legitimate and serious allegations on behalf of the public,” she said, adding that granting anonymity to suspects for 25 years after their death was “absurd” might have prevented the naming of Jimmy Savile in NI.

Mr Allister said: “I have contended from the outset that many of the Gillen proposals were extreme and foolish. Thus, in the assembly I opposed much of the implementing legislating and moved amendments accordingly, but such were voted down at the behest of the Justice Minister, Ms Long.

"Of particular concern to me was the assault on open justice by blanket provision for trials behind closed doors and the restrictions on cross-examination.

“Whereas, if victims are to have anonymity there is logic in suspects who are never charged also being protected, the practical outworkings were not adequately gamed out. The trigger in the legislation [s 12(1)] for anonymity for suspects is a complaint of relevant offending to the police, or a police investigation without a complaint.”

Mr Allister explained: "So, for example, in NI in a case similar to the Russell Brand matter, there can be the absurdity of identifying reporting on foot of a TV investigation, where no complaint has been made to the police, but once the complaint is lodged identifying reporting, including publication of photographs of the suspect, must cease, even though everyone already knows the identity of the suspect!”

Mr Allister added: “Provided there is no complaint to the police or a police investigation without a formal complaint, suspects can be named, as in the Brand TV programme, but once a complaint is lodged the stable door is bolted. All of which points to the unworkability of this aspect of Gillen. Such will only encourage pre-emptive reporting, maybe jeopardising the suspect even more, before the ban is triggered by a complaint to the police.”

Mr Allister also said: “There also is the fact that this legislation applies only in NI. So would NI papers be unable to publish what GB papers can? The practical implications, again, have been given scant thought. I see no justification for the arbitrary 25 extension beyond death. You can’t libel the dead, but the dead can be protected for 25 years from investigative reporting.”