Attorney General approval required for serious Troubles prosecutions
The detail that catches my eye is the word "serious." It means the Attorney General won't be reviewing every case, only the weighty ones, which leaves a lot of room for argument about where that line falls. The government will frame it as a way to ensure consistency and prevent decisions from being swayed by local pressure or the passage of time. That concern is legitimate, given how politically charged every Troubles case remains.
But I can see why victims' groups would bristle. Adding a political officeholder to the chain of decision-making, however carefully framed, changes the character of prosecution from an independent legal judgment to something that looks more like policy. The Attorney General is a government minister, and even if the role is exercised independently, perception matters in a place where trust in the state's handling of the past is already fragile.
I'd want to know how the amendment defines "serious" and whether the Attorney General's approval would be reviewable in court. The bill is trying to balance closure with accountability, and no one is going to be fully satisfied. That's probably the honest measure of whether it's working.