SDLP claims Justice Minister Naomi Long refusing to accept judgment which removes anonymity for suspected sex offenders
The SDLP claims the Justice Minister has refused to accept a court judgment which takes away anonymity for suspected sex offenders.
Last week the High Court ruled that a new law in Northern Ireland granting anonymity to sex offence suspects is incompatible with press rights to freedom of expression.
Mr Justice Humphreys declared it was beyond Stormont’s legislative competence to introduce the controversial Act which has the “chilling effect” of imposing a criminal sanction on public interest journalism.
The verdict represents victory for media organisations including the Belfast Telegraph and Irish News, which challenged legislation that prohibits the naming of alleged perpetrators before they have been charged or until 25 years after their death.
Today, SDLP Assembly leader Matthew O’Toole asked her to commit to not challenging the High Court judgement.
However the party says the minister today refused to confirm she would accept the court judgement brought by the press.
Responding to an urgent oral question brought by Matthew O’Toole MLA, Naomi Long left open the possibility of her department appealing the damning verdict from Mr Justice Humphreys.
The SDLP said the Justice Minister’s refusal to confirm she will accept the judgment came despite clear representations made by media companies and victims groups.
SDLP Assembly leader Matthew O’Toole said: “The seriousness of the impact of this bad law cannot be overstated. We know that publishers are getting lawyers’ letters warning them off naming deceased sex offenders even after civil courts have awarded compensation to their victims.
As Justice Humphreys said in his damning judgment, this is chilling for the most vital public interest journalism.
He added: “Most concerningly, she refused to confirm to me that she would not appeal the main elements of the court’s judgment, I find that position inexplicable. Even if she wishes to take further legal advice on legal consequences, she could have been clear in accepting the court’s view that the anonymity provisions are simply incompatible with the ECHR and the basic tenets of a free press. She was not, and her irascible, defensive response to basic scrutiny reflects poorly.”