Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 2 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Brian Kingston

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5584494

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will speak as a DUP member of the Committee for Justice, which I joined last September. This Justice Bill is certainly wide-ranging. My colleague Paul Frew reminded us that he had called it "half a Bill", because of the number of clauses and topics that were not ready to be included when the Justice Minister introduced it. Paul also pointed out that the pack with the text of the amendments is thicker than the original Bill, but he agreed that he was responsible for some of those amendments. The many additions to the Bill made it challenging for the Committee to ensure that there was proper scrutiny and evidence-gathering during Committee Stage. We were notified of some topics without their proposed wording, some of which did not ultimately proceed. The amendments in group 1 relate to Part 1, on rules for the retention of biometric data, including fingerprints and DNA profiles. The group contains Committee amendments relating to the retention of photographs, provision for which the Committee agreed should be included. The time limit on the retention of biometric data can, in various circumstances, be two, three, five, 25, 50 or 75 years. We can all accept the need for a range of retention periods: a shorter period in the case of those who are arrested but not yet charged or convicted, and, at the top end of the scale, a longer period for those convicted of recordable offences, including the most serious offences, that carry a potential prison sentence. Clearly, there is a range of views in the Chamber on the amendments on the detail of that. We have amendments from the Minister and from individual MLAs, and the full Committee agreed to the tabling of some amendments. Some amendments are from Sinn Féin. I note that its new-found interest in the retention of biometric data contrasts with its position on 23 September 1992, when the IRA exploded a 3,000 lb van bomb outside the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory at Belvoir in Belfast in an attempt to destroy evidence in terrorism cases. I was at football training at Olympia leisure centre on the Boucher Road that evening, and I well recall the sound of that massive explosion echoing around the city. Over 1,000 homes in Newtownbreda were damaged by that bomb, and many people were injured. No doubt Sinn Féin will tell us that there was no alternative to that, but there certainly was an alternative, and, nearly 34 years later, here we are in the Northern Ireland Assembly discussing amendments from Sinn Féin and other parties to ensure the retention of biometric matter in order to help convict those who are responsible for crimes such as the terrorism that occurred on that night in 1992. The Committee for Justice identified the need for a clause on the retention, use and destruction of photographs, and we reached agreement on that: it is amendment No 40. I note the various amendments to the PACE codes in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, most of which have been tabled by the Minister and relate to:

"Powers to photograph certain persons at a police station"

and:

"Power to specify date of attendance at police station for fingerprinting etc".

I welcome the fact that the Bill has finally reached Consideration Stage so that we can determine the Assembly's position on the 132 amendments that have been tabled to the Bill.

572 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: weak signal Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:45 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification