Justice Reform (Amendment) Bill 2025 and Contempt of Court Bill 2025

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB – cl.51(2-21)

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

Changes are already made in Sch. 1 of the JRA2021 as passed, which will amend the Criminal Code 1892. These are found in Division 1 of that Schedule which contains paragraphs 1 through to 60. For the most part – any changes proposed by the JRAB to these paragraphs – and set out in cl. 51 relate to harmonisation of language (e.g. 'His Majesty') or with the broader changes proposed to the jurisdiction of the Summary Court, or are made to target repeals and 'tidy' this Code.

At para. 11, changes related to s.19 of the Criminal Code 1892 were already included in the JRA2021 and saw a correction where the reference to 'a misdemeanour' was omitted.

However, several additional changes are now being proposed in connection with s.19 'Conspiring or soliciting to commit murder' -  one that, for harmonisation purposes, sees the removal of the reference in that section to 'Her Majesty', and one which is significant and sets out fresh policy.

The significant change proposed is in relation to the penalty for conspiring or soliciting to commit murder, which is proposed to be increased from the present 'term not exceeding 10 years' to a maximum penalty of custody for life, that better aligns with the penalty for murder, which is 'fixed by law' as custody for life.

Within England and Wales, such offences are referred to as 'inchoate offences' – and attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit and incitement to commit such an offence is treated, for the most part, as an offence that has the same penalty as if the primary offence had been committed. Further reference to the range of inchoate offences in England and Wales can be made within the Sentencing Act 2020 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab).

In relation to conspiracy to commit murder, and soliciting to commit murder, given the seriousness of this crime, increase of this penalty appears to be in keeping with the broader intent of Justice Reform.

It is also noted that while the above amendment is proposed now to target this one key point within the Criminal Code 1892, a more detailed review of the Criminal Code is planned as part of the Department’s ongoing work streams in relation to the modernisation and improvement of the Island’s Criminal Justice System and the legislation that system rests upon. In the future, further legislative changes will follow which will include a Sentencing Bill, which will be wider ranging, with a core focus on existing offences and their associated penalties, and suitable harmonisation of the statute book.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 54

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

The Firearms Act 1947 is proposed to be amended by the insertion of a new s. 30A in relation to the issuance of Statutory Guidance for the purposes of that Act, which the Chief Constable must have mind to when exercising their functions under that Act, and which the High Bailiff must have mind to (if relevant to any appeal heard under that Act).

Similar such Statutory Guidance exists in England and Wales and is issued by the Home Office. (opens in a new tab) This Guidance deals with a range of matters including suitability checks (background checks, safety checks, medical checks) along with other potential additional checks in relation to other factors such as social media, or history of domestic abuse.

It is also noted that a wider consultation on Firearms is planned in relation to the planned fresh Firearms (and Offensive Weapons) Bill (indicated within the Island Plan Legislative Programme 2021-2025) (opens in a new tab). However, given the potential importance of the ability to issue Firearms Statutory Guidance, alongside recognition of a key Tynwald Policy Decisions (ref. 14/20 – from the Social Affairs and Policy Review Committee of Tynwald Report in relation to Mental Health and Suicide) (opens in a new tab), this targeted amendment to the Firearms Act 1947 is proposed for progression within the JRAB.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 55

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

A fresh change is proposed to the Criminal Justice Act 1963, which would see the repeal of s. 30 'Probation Liaison Committee' and s. 31 'Probation rules'.

In practice, the Probation Liaison Committee is a meeting between members of the Department of Home Affairs, the Isle of Man Prison and Probation Service (opens in a new tab), the Magistracy and Judiciary. However, its membership and purpose have fallen out of practical usage and its composition is now outdated.

For example, the meeting requires the attendance of 3 members to be quorate, given that there are only two members of the judiciary and two Magistrates who sit on the committee it is often the case that the PLC is not quorate.

Generally, given the working relationships within the Criminal Justice System and the emergence of better alternative Forums and ways of working, it is proposed that this Committee be reconstituted under the umbrella of the Criminal Justice Board which has been given statutory foundation under s.4 the Justice Reform Act 2021, and can establish sub-Committees as required, the first of which is likely to be the Community Safety Partnership (PDF opens in a new tab). This would see that committee form part of this modernised approach to partnership working across the Criminal Justice System, and ensure that its membership was representative of all key stakeholders in that System.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl.56

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

A range of changes are proposed to the Jury Act 1980, the initial such few changes set out within cl. 56 of the JRAB are harmonisation changes correcting reference to 'Her Majesty' and 'coroner'.  These will not form part of the consultation questions in respect of the Jury Act 1980.

However, other more detailed fresh changes are being proposed for consultation as follows.

1. The change set out in the proposed new ss. (1A) within s.9 'Inspection of lists of jurors'. The new subsection (1A) provides that Regulations under s.9 may prescribe fees in relation to the supply of copies of lists of jurors, and also that these regulations may prescribe matters in relation to disclosure or use of the information contained in these lists. This is a practical change to ensure that these harmonise with the rest of this provision, which already include those in relation to prohibitions from disclosure or use etc
    
2. The changes proposed in relation to s.24A 'Majority verdicts' further adjust amendments brought to this section by the JRA2021 and commenced on the 20 December 2024, in accordance with the Justice Reform Act 2021 (Appointed Day) (No. 3) Order 2024 [SD 2024/0277] (PDF opens in a new tab). At that time, the targeted commencement of s. 103(4) JRA2021 meant that a verdict will be taken to be unanimous when 10 jurors (in the case of an 11 or 12 juror jury), or 6 jurors (in the case of a 7 juror jury), fully deliberate and reach a decision
   
   The subsequent amendments proposed now to s.24A would mean that:
    
   • in a case where the jury comprises 11 or 12 jurors, at least 10 of them agree the verdict
      
   • in a case where the jury comprises 10 jurors, at least 9 of them agree the verdict
      
   • in a case where the jury comprises 9 jurors, all 9 of them agree the verdict
      
   • in a case where the jury comprises 6 or 7 jurors, at least 5 of them agree the verdict
     
     This would provide even greater flexibility in respect of jury numbers and consensus, particularly in instances where jurors are lost (through illness, death or other issues). Additional changes are proposed at s.28 ('Death or illness, etc. of member of jury in a criminal trial') which harmonise with this fresh default position.
3. This builds on changes made by the JRA2021, that took effect on 20 December 2024 as set out above, and in certain instances (e.g. in relation to majority verdicts, peremptory challenge and judge only trials) were made to address recommendations made by the Tynwald Select Committee on the Operation of the Jury System. Further information around these recommendations can be found within the Tynwald Policy Decisions report and reference to the changes already made can be found within the Jury Act 1980 as presently in operation (and the footnotes to that Act). Further changes are proposed by the substitution of s.26 with an alternative section that modernises the process that is followed in relation to the empanelment of juries for criminal trials, and the processes followed with regard to juror 'discs'
    
4. A fresh ss. (6) is proposed within s.31 'Offences', in relation to contempt by disclosure of the identity or address of a juror. This proposal harmonises with others found in the Contempt of Court Bill 2025
    
5. Finally, s.32 is proposed to be amended both by the revision of the Department with responsibility of making Orders in relation to remuneration being adjusted to the Department of Home Affairs, which reflects the Department’s increasing role in relation to ‘justice matters’, and a small but significant change to indicate that such remuneration as is the entitlement of a juror will be prescribed by Order. This removes the monetary figures etc. otherwise presently stated in s.1 and allows for a more nuanced approach to making such an Order (following consultation with the Deemsters and with the approval of Tynwald). S.33 'Orders by Treasury' is proposed to be repealed alongside these changes as it related directly to s.9

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 57

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

A small cross-referencing correction is proposed to the Road Traffic Act 1985 which presently incorrectly refers to since repealed Summary Jurisdiction Act 1956 and is proposed instead to be amended to refer to the current relevant provision. – s.91 of the SJA1989.

Given this this is a harmonisation change, therefore no formal consultation question is being included within this consultation in respect of this Act.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 58

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

A change is proposed in connection with the Legal Practitioners Act 1986, in relation to immigration advisors. These functions are not currently regulated, and the Department is responding to concerns raised in relation to ensuring people acting as immigration advisors are subject to appropriate oversight.

Fresh s.1A and s.1B are proposed to be inserted which address a restriction on the provision of immigration services and prohibition on advertising immigration services for those who are not appropriately registered.

These provisions are proposed to align loosely with the approach taken in the United Kingdom, where those who provide immigration advice are subject to registration requirements unless they are members of a professional body and thereby precluded from these requirements. These provisions are set out within the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab). More information about How to become a regulated immigration adviser (opens in a new tab) and detailed information in relation to the Immigration Advice Authority (opens in a new tab).

The proposal is that a person shall be entitled to be registered if he satisfies the Registrar General that:

1. he is a fit and proper person to be registered; and
    
2. he holds a prescribed legal qualification which would enable him to practise law in the country in which he is qualified; and
    
3. he, or a firm of which he is a member or employee, has a permanent establishment in the Island; and
    
4. he complies with such further conditions as are prescribed

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl.59

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

A small change is proposed to s.2 of the Coroners of Inquests 1987 to correct wording at the end of that section which was otherwise amended by s.105 of the JRA2021.

The insertion of ss.(4)(d) within s.2 could not be appropriately inserted due to an error in the text as it was to be inserted (see s.105 of the published version of the JRA2021 and the editorial note in respect of this) (PDF opens in a new tab) - where a stray 'and' was included within the text of the section. This was not noticed until the section was subject to the Justice Reform Act 2021 (Appointed Day) (No. 1) Order 2022 [SD 2022/0265] (PDF opens in a new tab), and then noted for correction within the JRAB as correction of this cannot be done by reprint mechanism (under Part 5 of the Legislation Act 2015 (PDF opens in a new tab).

The sole change to the JRA2021 s.105 amendment which was progressed is the removal of the stray 'and' – and therefore no formal consultation question is being included within this consultation in respect of this Act.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl.60

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

This fresh change is proposed within the Criminal Justice Act 1991 where s. 7 'Evidence from computer records', which is supplemented by Schedule 1 'Provisions supplementary to section' 7, are both proposed to be repealed. It is intended to support the transformation of the Criminal Justice System to a more digital way of working by clearly setting out how digital evidence can be used in proceedings.

S. 7 and its associated Schedule were originally based, in drafting, on provisions found within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) (an Act of Parliament)(PDF opens in a new tab), most notably at s. 69 of that Act (and the associated Schedule 3 of that Act), which previously governed the admissibility of computer-generated evidence.

Subsequently in the UK, section 60 'Removal of restriction on use of evidence from computer records' of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (an Act of Parliament)(PDF opens in a new tab) ceased the applicability of s. 69 of PACE.

Prior to this cessation, s. 69 of PACE required proof that a computer was operating properly before its records could be admitted as evidence.

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 established a presumption that computer evidence is accurate, and the onus is on the party challenging its accuracy to provide evidence to the contrary.

This is generally referred to as the common law (rebuttable) presumption and was established following publication of the Law Commission’s Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics (opens in a new tab)  that recommended that s.69 be repealed and not replaced (see point 1.51 of that Report), a repeal that took place as described above.

The Island’s legislation was based on that of the UK, therefore, having identified that we have fallen 'out of step', it is proposed that the same repeal takes effect here via the proposed JRAB change. This is practical as either where there is no unique reason to have a unique Manx provision, in relation to a 'common' legal concept, and where either specific Manx case law does not exist or 'common' precedent case law from England and Wales would be persuasive (when both Manx and England and Wales laws are in harmony), such divergences are not practical.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl.61

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

In a similar manner to the proposed amendment of the Firearms Act 1947, set out above, the Shotguns, Air Weapons and Cross-bows Act 1994 is proposed to be amended by the insertion of a new s. 11A in relation to the issuance of Statutory Guidance for the purposes of this Act, which the Chief Constable must have mind to when exercising their functions under this Act, and which the High Bailiff must have mind to (if relevant to any appeal heard under this Act).

Similar such Statutory Guidance for Police on Firearms Licencing exists in England and Wales and is issued by the Home Office (opens in a new tab). This Guidance deals with a range of matters including suitability checks (background checks, safety checks, medical checks) along with other potential additional checks in relation to other factors such as social media, or history of domestic abuse.

It is also noted that a wider consultation on Firearms is planned in relation to the planned fresh Firearms (and Offensive Weapons) Bill (indicated within the Island Plan Legislative Programme 2021-2025)(opens in a new tab). However, given the potential importance of the ability to issue Firearms Statutory Guidance, alongside recognition of a key Tynwald Policy Decisions (ref. 14/20 – from the Social Affairs and Policy Review Committee of Tynwald Report in relation to Mental Health and Suicide) (opens in a new tab), this targeted amendment to the Firearms Act 1947 is proposed for progression within the JRAB.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl.51(47)

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

A number of key amendments are proposed to be made to the Custody Act 1995. These amendments are to be inserted within para. 98 of Sch. 1 of the JRA2021, which deals with the Custody Act 1995 and has not yet been commenced.

1. The first key change is the proposed insertion of a new s.19A 'testing prisoners for alcohol, drugs, psychoactive substances and other substances'. This proposes to modernise the existing s.19A which appears to have its drafting basis in s.16A of the Prisons Act 1952 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab), but has diverged from that Act over time. To be clear, the ability to test prisoners for drugs and alcohol is not a fresh proposal, however the range of substances which might be tested for, and the ability to amend s.19A by Regulations when there are changes in respect to human medicines, are fresh.
    
2. The second key change is a small amendment proposed within s.21 'Temporary release', s.22 'Temporary release on grounds of ill health', and s.23A 'Release in case of overcrowding', to insert wording in relation to the electronic monitoring on release of such a person.
   
   These small amendments are for clarity as the provisions already in place at ss.(1) of each section (and in relation to s.21, as supplemented by Rule 16 of the Custody Rules 1995 (PDF opens in a new tab) allow the detainee to be released subject to conditions as either the Prison Governor (for s.21) or the Department (either for releases under s.21 of more than 28 days in compliance with Rule 16, or release under s.22 or s.23A).

At present, Temporary release of any individual with an electronic monitoring condition under any of the foregoing sections is lawful, given that the release may be subject to conditions (and is an alternative to custody, in certain instances).

However, given the specific wording within para. 8(4A) of Sch. 2 to the Custody Act 1995, which makes explicit reference to electronic monitoring as a condition of licences for the purposes of that Schedule, the small harmonisation changes proposed to s.21, s.22 and s.23A clarify this position, and ensure better coherence within the Act more generally.

Finally, a range of other harmonisation changes i.e. those in relation to adjustment of the maximum summary penalty for offences (i.e. 2 years custody and a fine) are also proposed to be made in the Custody Act 1995, in all relevant places. These general changes form part of the enhancements set out in section 7.2 of this consultation, and therefore no consultation question is included in respect of these matters in relation to section 7.5 of this consultation.

A more detailed review of the Custody Act 1995 forms part of the Department’s ongoing work streams in relation to the modernisation and improvement of the Island’s Criminal Justice System and the legislation that system rests upon. In the future, further legislative change will likely follow and see broader modernisation of the Custody Act 1995.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 40 to 43

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab), which is the drafting basis for many of the PPPA1998 provisions.

Within the JRA2021, existing amendments to the PPPA1998 are found at Division 5 of Part 6. This division comprises of s.68 to 77 in the JRA2021 as passed, and the following additional amendments are proposed to form part of that Division.

A fresh s.68A and s.68B are proposed along with the substitution of the existing s.69 and the insertion of a fresh s. 74A, all within Division 5 of Part 6 of the JRA2021.

In practice the proposed effect of the 4 key amendments is as follows.

1. The first amendment, contained within cl. 40 JRAB and made by the insertion of s.68A within the JRA2021 would see the amendment of s.7 'Duty to make records concerning searches' where in ss. (9) the present time period of '12 months' would be substituted for '3 months'. S.7 deals with records concerning searches and the timescale referenced is that, within which, the person who was searched or the owner/person in charge of a vehicle which was searched, are entitled to a copy of the records relating to that search. The Island’s provision presently states 12 months, however in practice, given its basis in s.3 of PACE, which has subsequently been amended to state 3 months in the corresponding provision, the proposed amendment seems practical and would bring our police procedures in line with those of neighbouring jurisdictions.
    
2. The second amendment, also contained within cl. 40 of the JRAB and made by the insertion of s.68C in the JRA2021 would see the repeal of s.55 'Children: serious offences' of the PPPA1998. Alongside this change, a further small change is proposed at s.68B as s.40 (13) of the PPPA1998 presently contains a cross reference to s.55, so requires a further small amendment to harmonise with the repeal of s.55. 
   
   These provisions in the PPPA1998 have been identified as impractical and unworkable in their present form, as they restrict the ability of the police to effectively investigate all but the most serious crimes¹ where the perpetrator appears to be aged 10 years or over, but under 14 years of age. This means that as soon as a child thought to be under 14 years of age is arrested, according to PPPA1998 as presently drafted, that child cannot then be detained for questioning prior to charge, as Part IV (as per s.55) does not apply. The inclusion of this section is also out of keeping with PACE and the mechanisms under that Act, which for the most part is paralleled by those under PPPA1998, reflecting best practice alongside England and Wales.
   
   Naturally, children will remain in a custodial setting for as limited a duration as possible, and whilst in custody certain key steps will be taken by the Custody Officer (police officer in charge of police custody), to ensure that the person responsible for the child is contacted (and other key requirements under either PPPA1998 or Children and Young Persons Act 2001, which include those under the Codes of Practice that supplement PPPA1998 (PDF opens in a new tab), and more broadly in relation to the compliance requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of Child (opens in a new tab).
    
3. The third amendment, contained within cl. 41 of the JRAB and made by the substitution of s.69 in the JRA2021 would replace the present s.64 of PPPA1998 with a detailed alternative provision setting out the processes and requirements in connection with the taking of fingerprints. These provisions are based in drafting on s.61 of PACE, as the original provision in PPPA1998 was, and serve to better align with PACE as presently in force. Again, this is a practical operational change to best align with standardised 'good practice' for police forces in England and Wales.
    
4. The fourth amendment contained within cl. 43 of the JRAB and made by the insertion of a new s.74A of the JRA2021 is a small amendment to s.81 of the PPPA1998. This amendment proposes to omit the definition of 'registered nurse', and thereby remove the outdated cross reference to a now repealed provision in the National Health Act 2001 (PDF opens in a new tab), and also, separately, omit the definition of 'registered medical practitioner' that contains an outdated reference to the now repealed Medical Act 1985.
   
   The Interpretation Act 2015 (PDF opens in a new tab) defines, 'registered', followed by a reference to a medical practitioner, chiropractor, osteopath, nurse, midwife or other health professional as meaning a person of that description, who are persons regulated by the Health Care Professionals Act 2014 (PDF opens in a new tab), and have registration requirements as per the provisions of that Act (and in particular s.3 of that Act).
   
   S. 3 of the Health Care Professionals Act 2014 refers to 'a member of the profession of nursing or midwifery who is a registrant' amongst those defined as health care professionals. A 'registrant', for this purpose, is defined as having the same meaning as in the UK Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (PDF opens in a new tab) made under s. 60 of the Health Act 1999 (of Parliament).
   
   As such, nurses on the Isle of Man must register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (opens in a new tab).
   
   Separately, s.3 of the Health Care Professionals Act 2014, refers to a 'registered medical practitioner' amongst those defined as health care professionals. In this instance 'registered medical practitioner' means a person who is a fully registered person and holds a licence to practise.
   
   A 'fully registered person' has the same meaning as the Medical Act 1983 (of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab) and 'license to practice' has the meaning given to that expression by section 29A(1) of Medical Act 1983 (of Parliament).
   
   In essence, the register set out under that Act is that of all Doctors (GPs and Specialists), with a separate registration of emergency powers doctors and visiting overseas doctors and the relevant register (for that area) effectively comprises of 4 'types' of registration i.e. Provisional Registration, Full Registration, GP Register (including locums), Specialist Register (consultant posts in a medical or surgical specialty in any of the UK health services (other than as locum consultants) (opens in a new tab).
   
   Doctors must hold a licence to practice and registration with General Medical Council Register (opens in a new tab).

A final amendment in relation to the PPPA1998, where cl. 42 amends s.70 of the JRA2021, serves only to make a correction to the mechanism by which the change already progressed within s.70 of the JRA2021 takes effect on s.66 of the PPPA1998. The wording within s.70 as passed reads: for the words following 'if' substitute and should rather read: for 'if he has been convicted of a recordable offence' substitute 'if' as otherwise the insertion of ss. (a) and ss.(b) as passed do not read correctly within that provision. This is not a material change to s.70 as passed, and therefore no consultation question in relation to this one point is being included within this consultation.

While the above amendments are proposed to clarify or harmonise processes within PPPA1998, either generally, or to create alignment with PACE (on which the majority of the Island’s PPPA1998 is already based), a wider review of PPPA1998 is planned as part of the Department’s ongoing work streams in relation to the modernisation and improvement of the Island’s Criminal Justice System and the legislation that system rests upon.

¹S.55 PPPA1998 states these to be circumstances where a child over 10 years old but under 14 years old, is arrested without a warrant for an offence that leads/could lead to a person’s death or physical injury, arson, or a sexual offence.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl.62

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

The Protection from Harassment Act 2000 (PDF opens in a new tab) was amended by Part 8 of the JRA2021 and those amendments have already taken effect as set out above in relation to that Act.

Additional fresh amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act 2000 are now being proposed by cl. 64 of the JRAB as follows to strengthen protections for victims of harassment where the perpetrator may be carrying out harassment from outside of the Isle of Man or the United Kingdom, particularly using the internet:

1. A new section 4B 'Offences under sections 4 and 4A committed outside of the Island' is proposed to be inserted.
   
   Within the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab), section 4B was inserted by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab).
   
   This fresh section provided that in relation to offences under sections 4 and 4A (of that Act) which were committed in a country outside the United Kingdom, but that course of conduct would constitute an offence under section 4 or 4A if it occurred in England and Wales, and the person (committing the offence) is a United Kingdom national or is habitually resident in England and Wales, the person is guilty in England and Wales of that offence. No such provision presently exists in the Isle of Man's Protection from Harassment Act 2000, therefore we potentially face a problem that does not exist in England and Wales.
   
   Practically, in the modern world of social media, such a problem potentially dilutes the intended protections of the Protection from Harassment Act, and therefore addition of a provision similar to that found in the UK Act, is being proposed. This negates any issue with requiring other jurisdictions to investigate matters where the victim is in our jurisdiction and this proposed provision would allow our police to investigate such matters here. Additionally, in such an instance if a conviction was made (for this fresh offence) then a Restraining Order could be sought.
    
2. A supplementary change is also proposed within cl. 64 that targets s. 5A(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 2000, the word 'further' where it appears in ss. (1) is proposed to be omitted.
   
   The reference to 'further conduct' when the defendant has been acquitted of an offence. Appears to have diverged unintentionally from section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (an Act of Parliament) and in particular the wording found within section 5A of that Act, on which the Isle of Man drafting is based.
   
   Therefore, to ensure clarity (and to realign with that Act) the wording is proposed to be amended so as to finally read: 'A court before which a person ('the defendant') is acquitted of an offence may, if it considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from conduct which...'.
   
   Essentially the 'further' is of little benefit to this section (and might potentially inadvertently cause an issue with interpretation).

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 63

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

The Human Rights Act 2001 (HRA2001) (PDF opens in a new tab) was amended by Part 9 of the JRA2021, those amendments have already taken effect as set out above in relation to that Act. These amendments primarily referred to the making of Remedial Orders.

Subsequently, a small additional fresh amendment to the HRA2001 is now being proposed by cl. 65 of the JRAB also in relation to Remedial Orders. Within s. 9A 'Remedial orders', a fresh subsection (4) (ba) is proposed to be added immediately after subsection (9A (4) (b) that will state: '(ba) His Majesty's High Court of Justice in England'.

The proposed amendment would mean that judgements of the High Court in England and Wales would become judgements of a 'relevant court' that are matters that might be considered applicable when making a remedial order under section 9A of the HRA2001.

Presently subsection 9A(1B)(b) of the HRA2001 provides that the basis on which a remedial order might be made is satisfied when: The Council of Ministers (having consulted the Deemsters), and on having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights made after the coming into operation of s. 9A(1B), or a decision of a relevant court made after the coming into operation s. 9A(1B) of the Act, are satisfied that a provision of a relevant enactment is incompatible with any obligation of the United Kingdom arising from the Convention and, by reason of a similarity of drafting with that of the relevant enactment, a provision of an Act of Tynwald or of a public document is also likely to be incompatible with such an obligation.

The proposed amendment would see His Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England included within the list of relevant courts, and alignment with the Human Rights Act 1998 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab) improved.

It may be the case that additional review of the provisions in relation to compatibility and remedial orders is required to wholly align with the UK Human Rights Act. Therefore, this small amendment is offered for consultation now and a wider review may follow in due course. Any comments in respect of compatibility and remedial orders can be made in connection with this proposed change.

A further change proposed to the HRA2001 as s.19 in relation to the substitution of the term 'Her Majesty' with that of 'His Majesty' is a harmonisation change only.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 64

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

Two targeted amendments are proposed to the Fireworks Act 2004 (PDF opens in a new tab) within cl. 66 of the JRAB that will address recommendations 2 and 6 of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Fireworks Act (opens in a new tab). Recommendations 2 and 6 are set out within the Tynwald Policy Decisions index (opens in a new tab), however the text of the recommendation has been reproduced below for ease of reference (as it is brief).

1. Recommendation 2 was that the requirement for notification of displays be amended to allow for notification by means of an appropriate medium. In order to address this recommendation, a series of targeted amendments are proposed within s.4 of the Fireworks Act 2004, which collectively would provide for notice to be made in a manner the Department determines is sufficient to bring it to the attention of persons likely to be effected by the proposed letting off of fireworks, and that the Department will publish the information required to be contained in such a notice and the manner in which giving such a notice shall be satisfied. These amendments are designed to meet the requirements of the recommendation.
    
2. Recommendation 6 was that the offence at section 5 of the Fireworks Act 2004 should be extended to cover the letting off of fireworks in any location. It is proposed that s. 5(1) of the Act be amended to remove the words 'in a public place' from the offence stated within that section, meaning ss. (1) would read 'No person shall let off a firework within the hearing or sight of a person or domestic animal likely to be caused harassment, annoyance, alarm or distress thereby.' This discrete amendment is designed to meet the requirement of the recommendation, without wider alteration to the provisions of the Fireworks Act.

Additional work in respect of fireworks is also ongoing, as reflected in the Tynwald Decisions Index, while in some cases certain other recommendations of the Select Committee have already been implemented (e.g. recommendation 1 in relation to issuance of guidance, and recommendation 3, in relation to the form of address information given in a notice). Other information about the ongoing work of the Fire and Rescue Service in relation to fireworks, bonfire and associated matters, including any guidance which has been issued, can be found on the Fireworks displays page (opens in a new tab) and the Bonfire and fireworks safety page (opens in a new tab).

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 50

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

S. 144 of the JRA2021 deals with amendments to the Criminal Justice, Police and Courts Act 2007 (CJ, P&CA2007) (PDF opens in a new tab). Various amendments to this section, and by extension this Act, are proposed within c.50 of the JRAB.

These amendments support the aims in the Criminal Justice Strategy to ensure victims and witnesses are placed at the heart of the Criminal Justice System. In particular these amendments make provision to protect vulnerable victims and witnesses during proceedings.

There are also separate provisions relating to sentencing where a new aggravating factor is introduced, based on assaults where the victim’s protected characteristics are presumed to be a factor in the motivation for the crime.

In addition, a further aggravating factor is introduced where the victim is a member of a front line service carrying out their duties.

The proposed amendments are as follows:

1. At s.114 of the JRA2021, within the section header - the words 'section 30A to 30D inserted' are substituted for the word 'amended' - as now the changes proposed within the following fresh subsection are amendments broader than solely the insertion of sections 30A to 30D as originally passed in the JRA2021, in connection with the CJ,P&CA2007. Other small harmonisation changes are made to insert subsection numbering, to ensure that the subsequent fresh amendments proposed within the new s.36A to 36F, s. 40A and s.41A to 41D and s.49A can be appropriately incorporated within the CJP&CA2007.
    
2. A small change is made at s.35, where the words 'this Part' are proposed to be replaced with the words 'this Act', so as to enable rules of court to be made in relation to any part of the Act'.
    
3. Fresh sections 36A to 36F are proposed to be inserted within Part 9 'Evidence' dealing with the following matters.
   
   The fresh s. 36A supplements s. 36 of the CJ, P&CA2007 by setting out a clear process in relation to cross examination or re-examination of video recorded evidence and the procedure in connection with this, including criteria as to when such cross-examination or re-examination will be permitted by a court under a direction.
   
   The fresh section 36B stands alone to provide protections in connection with proceedings related to a sexual offence (an offence for the purposes of the Sexual Offences and Obscene Publications Act 2021) prohibiting any person charged with such an offence (defendant) from cross examining the witness who is the complainant (the term for the person who is the alleged victim of the sexual offence) during those proceedings.
   
   The fresh section 36C stands alone to provide protections in connection with 'protected witnesses', who are defined as being either the child complainant (the term for the alleged victim of the crime) or child witnesses to the commissioning of an offence. This section precludes cross examination of such a protected witness by the person charged with such an offence (defendant), in any proceedings, including those that follow such a 'protected witness' having already given evidence by video (so any proceedings to which section 36A applies are included).
   
   The fresh section 36D applies where neither section 36B or 36C already applies, and provides that a prosecutor might make an application, or that the court of its own motion might raise, as to whether a direction should be made by the court to prevent the defendant cross examining a witness (in this instance this could be either a witness generally or the complainant i.e. the person who is the alleged victim of the offence).
   
   Such a direction will be made by the court if it is of the view that the quality of evidence being given (by the witness) is likely to be diminished if the cross-examination (or further cross-examination) is conducted by the defendant in person, and would be likely to be improved if a direction were given and where the court is of the view that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to give such a direction. The court will also consider other matters such as the views of the witness about whether they are content to be cross examined by the accused, the character and behaviour of the defendant, and prior relationship with the defendant.
   
   In this section, a witness does not include a person charged with an offence in these proceedings (so does not include the likes of a co-accused person).
   
   The fresh section 36E sets out further consideration to be made when a direction under sections 36B, 36C or 36D has been made, as to how alternative questioning of the complainant or witness is to take place, and if there is a satisfactory alternative process that can be followed. If there is not, section 36E provides that an alternative is for the defendant to seek an advocate to act for them and notify the court as to which advocate they have appointed. If the defendant will not appoint an advocate, the court will consider whether it is in the interests of justice to appoint an advocate to represent the interests of the defendant, to conduct any cross examination.
   
   The fresh 36F provides that the Treasury, following consultations with the Deemsters, may make regulations to provide for the payment of fees or costs incurred by an advocate who has been appointed under section 36E, in other words an advocate appointed by the court, for the cross examination of a complainant or witness, by virtue of sections 36B to 36D applying (and preventing a defendant cross examining a complainant or a witness).
   
   It is noted for clarity that these provisions are very similar to those set out within Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 (PDF opens in a new tab), and these improvements to the protection of complainants (and witnesses) will harmonise with the changes found in that Act which also awaits commencement. More detail in relation to those provisions and their planned commencement can be found in the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 Implementation Plan (PDF opens in a new tab) and in the Domestic Abuse page on gov.im (opens in a new tab) (in particular by referring to the Domestic Abuse Multi-Agency Action Plan).
    
4. A fresh s. 40A 'Sentencing Council' is proposed to be inserted, within Part 10 'Sentencing Principles'.
   
   This fresh section would provide for regulations to be made by the Department of Home Affairs, following consultation with the Judge of Appeal and the Deemsters, to establish a Sentencing Council and set out the structure and functions of that Council.
   
   Regulations may provide for the publication of reports on the activities of the Council.
   
   Additionally, Regulations will provide that this Sentencing Council may prepare, consult on and publish sentencing guidelines, that, where relevant to the sentencing of any offender, the courts shall have mind to unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so in that particular case.
   
   This proposed section sets out a more bespoke Island approach to the establishment of a Sentencing Council and that Council reporting on its activities and producing Sentencing Guidelines as it deems appropriate for the Island.
   
   Presently, s.229 'Application to the Island of sentencing guidelines' of the Sexual Offences and Obscene Publications Act 2021 provides that Application Orders might be made, following consultation with the Deemsters and such other persons as the Department may consider appropriate, applying to the Island (as amended/modified) any sentencing guidelines issued under section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 200919 (of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab) in relation to sexual offences. These Sentencing Guidelines are issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales (opens in a new tab).
   
   This power was exercised this year, with the issuance of the Sexual Offences (Sentencing Guideline - Indecent Photographs of Children) (Application) Order 2025 (PDF opens in a new tab) that commenced on the 21 April 2025. More detailed information about that Application Order, and the background to its progression, can be found on the Explanatory Memo (PDF opens in a new tab).
    
5. The proposed insertion sees fresh sections 41A through to 41D also being added within Part 10 'Sentencing Principles', dealing with the following matters.
   
   The fresh s. 41A will stand alone for the purposes of providing that a court, will consider the seriousness of an offence as aggravated by the specific hostility shown by the offender at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, towards the victim of the offence based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group, a religious group, or based on a disability the victim has, or based on the  sex or sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or based on the victim being transgender (or presumed to be transgender), or that the victim is vulnerable.
   
   The section offers further definition of the terms used, including that 'presumed' means 'presumed by the offender'. Additionally, when the court is considering the vulnerability of the victim, this is further noted to include in relation to the age of the victim and whether the victim is pregnant or has recently given birth.
   
   S. 41A further provides that the Department of Home Affairs may by Order adjust s. 41A, in accordance with the Tynwald approval procedure, and might make any amendments to the CJ,P&CA2007 as are needed as a result of such a change).
   
   The fresh section 41B when read alongside the fresh section 41C (and to an extent fresh section 41E) provides that a court, in considering an offence before it, that is of the nature specified in subsection 41B (3), where a list of serious offences is set out ranging from rape and sexual assault to manslaughter, will consider that, when such an offence is committed against an emergency worker or a frontline worker - the offence is aggravated. The fresh section 31C sets out those to whom the definition of 'emergency worker' or 'frontline worker' applies by setting out a list of personnel including police officers, prison officers, those fulfilling the functions or duties of a police or prison officer, medical professionals, and those employed in the probation service or social care workers or care service workers. Section 41C further provides that the list of personnel can be amended by the Department of Home Affairs by Order, following the Tynwald approval process - and that the list of offences captured at section 41B may also be amended in such an Order, or the offences or any matter referred to in section 41D.
   
   The fresh section 41D aligns with the sections inserted at section 41B and 41C, providing that, in circumstances where assault or battery are perpetrated against a person providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services to the public - will be treated as an aggravated assault.
   
   While it is unfortunate that such provisions are deemed to be required, it is the case that the lack of such aggravations (when compared to neighbouring jurisdictions) seems to be a deficiency in existing Manx law that requires addressing at this time.
    
6. The proposed insertion sees a fresh section 49A added within Part 13 Miscellaneous dealing with the following matters.

   
   The fresh s.49A of the CJ, P&CA2007 sets out requirements in relation to the testing for either drugs or alcohol of a person in respect of whom a community order has been made, in order to determine if that person has such a substance in their body. A community order in this instance relates to an order of a type described in section 47 of the CJ, P&CA2007, and includes a range of orders including probation orders, court bail orders and anti-social behaviour orders.
   
   The process by which the sample is to be taken, and the requirement for that sample, must be set out in a Code of Practice that is to be approved by Order, in accordance with the Tynwald approval procedure. Additionally, substances which are psychoactive substances may be prescribed for the purposes of this section, by Order, following the Tynwald approval process. 
   
   More incidental detail with regard to the operation of Part 13 in respect of Electronic Monitoring can be found on the Explanatory Memo (PDF opens in a new tab), as this background was provided as part of the progression of a recent Order made under s.48 of that Act.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 65

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

Fresh amendments are proposed to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 2016 (PDF opens in a new tab) by cl. 65 of the JRAB to address several cross referencing or harmonisation changes in relation to either cross references to the new sending processes under s.18C and s.18D of the SJA1989, or to appropriately refer to all sections under which Rules of Court are made, and finally to harmonise with a reference to both Courts of Summary Jurisdiction and Court of General Gaol Delivery).

Given these are cross referencing or harmonisation changes, therefore no formal consultation question is being included within this consultation in respect of this Act.

Changes to this Act are proposed by the Contempt of Court Bill 2025, in the way of repeals, and therefore any comments in respect of this Act could be either captured in the general comments final question in relation to the JRAB, or in respect of the Contempt of Court Bill 2025.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 66

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

Fresh sections 6A and 6B are proposed to be inserted within the Criminal Evidence Act 2019 (PDF opens in a new tab).

These provisions reproduce wording formerly found within s. 53 and s. 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 2001 (PDF opens in a new tab). These provisions were effectively disapplied from the 01 May 2019, by virtue of Article 4 of the Criminal Evidence Act 2019 (Appointed Day) Order 2019 [SD 2019/0144] (PDF opens in a new tab). Given the disapplication and the defunct nature of these provisions, they were repealed within section 107 of the JRA2021 that took effect on 07 September 2022 in accordance with the Justice Reform Act 2021 (Appointed Day) (No. 1) Order 2022 [SD 2022/0265] (PDF opens in a new tab).

However, it has now been established that these provisions should not have been disapplied in 2019. They therefore now need to be re-instated. This is proposed to be done by inserting them into the Criminal Evidence Act 2019, where they better align with the content of that Act.

Therefore, no formal consultation question is being included within this consultation in respect of this Act.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 67

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

Fresh amendments are proposed to the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 (PDF opens in a new tab) as follows.

1. In relation to s.3 'Interpretation'. It is proposed that a fresh definition of 'Rules of Court' be added for the purposes of the Act to be clear that these refer to Rules of Court made otherwise under s. 91 SJA1989, s. 57 Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1993 and s. 25 of the High Court Act 1991. Additionally, a specific additional power is proposed to be added within s.3 that provides that the Department may by Regulations amend this section (in accordance with the Tynwald approval process).
    
2. In relation to s.17, a clarification is proposed that where the Staff of Government Division allows a person’s appeal against conviction, it may make a domestic abuse protection order against the person, and any order so made shall be treated as having been made by or before the court in which the person was convicted. This is a technical amendment as to the court procedure for the treatment of a Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) when made on appeal.
    
3. In relation to s.27, two small, targeted amendments are proposed. The first that in the definition of 'relevant court' be adjusted to include a fresh clause ss. (aa) the Staff of Government Division. And the second that the definition of 'relevant judge' should include a fresh clause ss. (aa) 'where the order was made by the Staff of Government Division, a judge of that court'. These are clarifications that the Staff of Government Division and a judge of the Staff of Government Division (at Appeal Division of the criminal courts) are also to be included within the list of those who are a 'relevant court' i.e. that with potential to make a DAPO, and a 'relevant judge', in relation to issuance of a warrant for the purposes of s.27.
    
4. In relation to s.28, a clarification amendment is proposed to insert the requirement that the person’s date of birth be a requirement for the information required to be notified to the police, by a person who becomes subject to a DAPO. A circular cross-referencing error at ss. (8) is also proposed to be corrected.
    
5. After s.34, a fresh s. 34A is proposed to be inserted. This amendment proposes to clarify those proceedings under the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 which are civil matters, and the general fact that when considering these matters, a court is not restricted to considering evidence that would apply in criminal proceedings.
   
   Additionally, it is clarified that a DAPO might be made or varied in such proceedings, in addition to an order discharging a person conditionally or absolutely.
   
   This proposed section broadly aligns with s. 48 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab).
    
6. The SJA1989 and the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 are both set to be amended by Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 which sets out detailed amendments. The following are amendments to that Part.
   
   The alignment of definitions of 'domestic proceedings' and 'family proceedings' within these Acts proved incompatible within the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 as progressed, in relation to those proceedings where the protections around cross-examination in person have effect. In essence, where these protections are necessary as part of any kind of domestic or family proceedings when otherwise the suspect/perpetrator of ongoing domestic abuse chooses to represent themselves and cross examine their victim/alleged victim.
   
   Therefore, targeted amendments are proposed to ensure that these terms are appropriately aligned, and in addition, Regulation making powers are proposed, in relation to the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003, to ensure that s. 114B of that Act remains in alignment once commenced. A further small amendment to that section is proposed to ensure that the definition of unconditional and conditional caution harmonises with those found in Part 6 of the JRA2021 (once commenced).
   
   Further small amendments to this Part relate to the making of Regulations by the Department in respect of 'protective injunctions', as already referred to in s.53C as it will be inserted within the SJA1989, and s. 114C as it will be inserted within the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003. In both instances a reference to 'rules of court' is amended to that of 'Regulations' made by the Department with the approval of Tynwald.
   
   These changes supplement provisions elsewhere in Part 4 as passed that already provide for the Department to make regulations in relation to 'specified offences' for the purposes of s. 53B(5) as it will be inserted in the SJA1989, and s. 114B(5) as it will be inserted in the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003, respectively.
   
   These amendments broadly mirror the process in the UK within the equivalent provisions at s.31R and s. 31S of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab) and within s. 85F and s. 85G of the Courts Act 2003 (an Act of Parliament) (PDF opens in a new tab) providing for both 'specified offence' and 'protective injunction' to be specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.  The Prohibition of Cross-Examination in Person (Civil and Family Proceedings) Regulations 2022 (PDF opens in a new tab) provide for this in the UK.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 68

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

Fresh amendments are proposed to the Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Act 2021 (LLPEA2021) (PDF opens in a new tab) as follows.

1. In s.10 'Rules of court', a small amendment is made to clarify that the Tynwald procedure in relation to rules of court is laying only – to align with all other such rules of court. Additionally, an amendment is proposed to insert a new subsection that provides that, despite the requirements at s. 7(2) (a) and s. 8(2) of the LLPEA2021, in relation to the composition of the Licensing Court and Licensing Court of Appeal, the Licensing Court or Court of Appeal may comprise of the High Bailiff sitting alone to deal with a hearing or matter specified in Rules of Court. This manner of flexibility existed under the now otherwise repealed Licensing Act 1995, within s. 5(4)(c) of that Act in respect to the making of similar rules, and it has been identified, following the bedding in of the new Licensing Framework (predominantly comprising of the LLPEA2021, and the  Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Regulations 2022 (PDF opens in a new tab) (the 2022 Regulations), that such amendment is practical to provide additional flexibility.
    
2. In s.15 'Regulations: determination of application for licence' two additional subsections are proposed to be incorporated. Ss. (1A) which will provide an additional power which means that if conditions are made in Regulations are stipulated to be so, these will apply to licences which have already been granted, in addition to those granted after that that date (so there will be no discrepancy, for example, with mandatory conditions, found with Sch. 3 of the 2022 Regulations, and their applicability, if these change).
   
   Ss. (1B) will provide that these Regulations may permit a licence condition to require application to the Licensing Court for additional approval or authorisation as specified in the condition and permit the Licensing Court to issue directions in relation to a condition.
   
   Collectively these changes are proposed to ensure that no matters which arise are beyond the scope of licence conditions, and to avoid any lack of clarity about the applicability of mandatory conditions (should these be amended). The Regulation making powers contained elsewhere in the LLPEA2021 are for the most part subject to the approval of Tynwald, following consultation with a range of stakeholders, as set out at s. 59 Consultation of the LLPEA2021.
    
3. At s. 16 a range of amendments are proposed to bolster this section with further regulation making powers in respect of the process around review of a licence (by the Licensing Court) and the processes around such a review (including the application for such a review and fees associated with that application), and the outcomes of that Review which might (once amended) include written warnings, variation of licences, suspension or revocation of a licence. The proposed need for such changes is to appropriately address the minority of licensees, i.e. those not operating appropriately in line with licensing objectives (set out in s.57 of the LLPEA2021) or expected standards (including those set out in the Isle of Man Licensing Forum Code of Practice and Guidance on Liquor Licensing (PDF opens in a new tab) and to be able to do so in a more nuanced manner (e.g. warning or suspension rather than revocation of a licence etc.)
    
4. In s. 20 a small change is proposed by the insertion of a new ss. (2A) that would include a further matter as one which Regulations may be made in connection with, which is information that the licensee or other such person specified in those Regulations who is connected to the licence, must notify to the Department, the licensing authority or the Licensing Court.
    
5. In s. 24 a change is proposed that will see the insertion of a new ss. (3A) which clarifies that (alongside the other proposed changes to review of premises licences etc.) where the Chief Constable applies, or the Licensing Court on its own motion directs, it may require the Chief Constable to report on a premises where the licensee is a company. Subject to the receipt of that report, the Court may then direct that the licensee must nominate one or more alternative Responsible Persons (be registered) in place of the Responsible Person(s) currently in place.
   
   In other words, the Court may look into the running of a premises (for example where there are issues raised about the premises by the Chief Constable, or from another source), and if it was to determine there was an issue with the Responsible Person, it might require an alternative appointment to be made.
    
6. At s. 30 and s. 41, amendments are proposed to insert the offences of drunk on licensed premises and drunk in public, both of which formerly appeared in the now otherwise repealed Licensing Act 1995, as s. 33(1) and s. 75(1) respectively, but were saved from repeal by the selective commencement made at Article 3 of the Liquor Licensing and Public Entertainments Act 2021 (Appointed Day) (No.2) Order 2022 [SD2022/0289]  (PDF opens in a new tab) following determination that such provisions, while not used extensively, were still of some benefit. More information about that selective commencement for [SD2022/0289] can be found on the Explanatory Memo (PDF opens in a new tab).
    
7. In s. 39 'Appeals', a small harmonisation change is proposed to clarify that Regulations may amend that section of the LLPEA2021, not only to set out the persons who may appeal (as is already provided in ss. (14)(b)) but also the decisions which may be appealed against, again this is a harmonisation change to otherwise align this section with what has become apparent might at some time be required for the Licensing Framework, and if at such time that was to occur, consultation in accordance with s.59, followed by the approval of Tynwald, would be required.

JRAB Clause ref.: JRAB - cl. 69

Brief description of the change(s) proposed and reason for change: 

A series of discrete amendments are proposed to the Sexual Offences and Obscene Publications Act 2021 (SOOP) (PDF opens in a new tab) as follows.

1. At s. 104 'Test of obscenity,' a targeted change is proposed to the wording otherwise found within that test, to make clear that obscene material does not have to be seen, but if it is 'such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons if they read, saw or heard the matter contained or embodied in it'. The present wording of s. 102 'Possession of extreme pornographic images', and the offence set out in that section, is presently hampered by the wording within s. 104 when cross referenced from s. 102(2) (a), as presently s. 104(1) refers to instances in which [an article is obscene if it would] tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, 'see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it'.
    
2. Within s. 144, that relates to the power to displace s. 140 (which relates to the otherwise blanket anonymity provided by that section, for suspects and defendants alleged to have committed certain offences under Part 8, which are themselves set out at s.142), a change is proposed to harmonise with a legal position determined in a neighbouring jurisdiction.
   
   Specifically, a small change is proposed to ensure that the Island’s SOOP anonymity provisions are improved and would therefore be beyond legal challenge of a kind see in relation to Northern Ireland’s Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (PDF opens in a new tab). The Northern Ireland Act was judged by the High Court in Belfast (on 31 May 2024) (PDF opens in a new tab) to be incompatible with article 10 (Freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights (PDF opens in a new tab) (namely the article 10 rights of the media organisations who brought the challenge), and no appeal of that judgement was proposed by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister (opens in a new tab).
   
   While the Isle of Man Act is constructed differently to the Northern Ireland Act, a small amendment is proposed to put its own ECHR compliance beyond doubt. This change is proposed by way of the insertion of a fresh ss. (9) within s. 144 that will provide that the Department may set out in Regulations other persons who may make an application for a direction under subsection (1) or (2) to be made, and that these Regulations will be subject to the Tynwald approval process. In other words, Regulations may specify those persons who can make an application for anonymity to be lifted. Additionally, a fresh ss. (10) makes clear that other supplementary provisions can be set out in these same Regulations, to ensure that the Chief Constable, the prosecution and the defence are permitted to make representations to the judge (determining if anonymity is to be lifted) before that judge decides whether to give such a direction.  The proposal would then enable regulations to be made, following consultation, to ensure that the right balance is struck between the rights of privacy of the accused on the one hand, and media freedom to report, on the other.
    
3. At s. 205 – a reference to 'Her Majesty' is adjusted to 'His Majesty'.
    
4. At s. 233 a fresh ss. (1A) is proposed to make clear that sexual offences prevention orders and risk of sexual harm orders made under the Sexual Offenders Act 2006 and remaining in operation under the Sexual Offences and Obscene Publications Act 2021 by virtue of section 233(1), are to be treated as if they are the corresponding orders under the 2021 Act. This provision is for the avoidance of doubt only, in view of the question being raised in a case before a court of summary jurisdiction.
   
   Generally, those who were subject to sexual offences prevention orders were also addressed by s. 152 of SOOP, that transitioned sexual offences prevention orders, risk of sexual harm orders and interim orders to be treated as subject to the notification requirements of Part 10 of SOOP, until such an order was discharged or otherwise ceased to have effect. Additionally, certain provisions in relation to sexual offences prevention orders were addressed within Article 3 of the Sexual Offences and Obscene Publications Act 2021 (Appointed Day) (No. 2) Order 2024 (PDF opens in a new tab) which commenced the bulk of SOOP from 25 March 2024.