Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 2 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

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 5584825

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the chance to introduce this group of amendments. I will begin to speak as Chair of the Committee, and then I will speak to my amendments and make some remarks on the group in a personal capacity. I turn to Committee amendments Nos 41, 42 and 43. During consideration of Part 2 of the Bill, the Committee heard from several organisations about the need to strengthen the considerations that the police and courts must have regard to when making decisions about a child's bail or remand. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 require the police and the courts to have regard to the juvenile's age, maturity and needs when making a determination about the release of a child on bail, the imposition of conditions for bail or whether the young person should be remanded in custody. In oral and written evidence to the Committee, respondents suggested that the matters that the police and courts must have regard to should include reference to the vulnerabilities of the child or young person. The Committee explored the proposal further during oral evidence with Include Youth, and members heard that youth organisations see increased complexity of need from young people that could include mental health issues, drug and alcohol issues or a history of abuse, trauma or neglect. Therefore, whilst acknowledging that age, maturity and needs are required to be considered, Include Youth felt that looking at a young person's vulnerabilities could be important in capturing some of those things. In our deliberations on the evidence received, we wrote to the Department requesting views on adding vulnerabilities to the matters to which the police and the courts must have regard when making decisions on bail and custody for young people.

The Committee asked whether the Minister would be prepared to table amendments to that effect to the relevant clauses in Part 2. In response, the Department stated:

"whilst there is an argument to say that 'needs' and 'vulnerabilities' are aligned ... the Minister appreciates there is a subtle distinction between them".

Although the Minister did not intend to table amendments herself, she advised that she would not be opposed to the Committee's amendments. The Committee therefore tabled amendments Nos 41, 42 and 43 to insert ", vulnerabilities" after "maturity" in clauses 4, 5 and 6. I hope that the House will support those small but important amendments.

I will now speak to the Committee's amendment No 52, which is on the review of the use of live links. The measures in the Bill provide for the use of remote video interviewing by police and for the extension of the period of pre-charge detention. The Committee considers that there are benefits to be gained by the use of live links for those purposes, such as access to justice and improved efficiency in the justice system. The Committee therefore supports the placing of those measures on the statute book. That does not mean, however, that concerns or issues were not raised about the live links provisions in the Bill and the planned ministerial amendments. The Committee heard that live links must not disadvantage victims, witnesses or defendants and must not result in rights being diminished. We repeatedly cautioned against the need to ensure that the use of remote videoconferencing did not become "live links by default". The need was highlighted for appropriate protections and safeguards in the use of live links, particularly for children and vulnerable people, to ensure that those involved can fully understand, consent to and participate in proceedings. Children's groups advised that a balance must be struck between children's rights and the access to justice test. Children must be supported to make informed choices and to participate meaningfully in proceedings by the most appropriate method. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) advised that the use of a video link may cause additional barriers for some. Active consideration must therefore be given to providing the necessary accommodations for those with speech, language and communication needs. The need to ensure remote participants' access to information, guidance and other relevant documentation was also highlighted as being essential to ensuring that equal access to justice is maintained. Evidence that the Committee received suggested that monitoring should be put in place to ensure that use of live links does not become the default approach and that live links are not used inappropriately. Such monitoring is also needed to ensure that the rights of all those involved are safeguarded and that live links are operated in the best interests of justice. In response to those concerns, the Department stated that it did not expect the situation to become one of "live links by default" and that the provisions would not serve as a replacement for in-person attendance. The Department also pointed to proposed new article 46ZB, which includes a mandatory requirement to ensure that the use of the live link interview is not contrary to the interests of justice, the test for which, the Department stated:

"is wide ranging and must take account of any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights."

In response to the assertion that monitoring will be required, the Department stated that it did not have a mechanism to monitor the use of live links and that their use in police custody settings would be a matter for the PSNI and would be subject to the normal monitoring arrangements of the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB), Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS). During our deliberations on the Bill, Committee members indicated that they were content with the live links provisions but believed that their use should be monitored and evaluated in order to ensure that the concerns raised in the evidence that we had received did not materialise. We therefore asked whether the Minister would be content to bring forward such an amendment, providing her with a draft that had been prepared for the Committee by the Bill Clerk. In response, the Department advised that the Minister recognised that there may be benefits in having such a review mechanism but that the police have their own internal governance and monitoring arrangements. It also advised that the Minister would not bring forward an amendment but asked that, if the Committee were to bring forward such an amendment, it would include a requirement for the Department to appoint a suitable person to carry out a review rather than tasking the Department to carry out the review itself. The Committee agreed on 12 March to introduce a review clause after clause 21 to report on whether and to what extent the use of live links in police custody has been effective. As suggested, the amendment allows the Department to appoint a suitable person or body to carry out the review. The review period is three years after the provisions come into operation, which should be sufficient time to see how live links are operating. The review will include quantitative data on the number of directions for participation in proceedings by different courts and tribunals and will also require an assessment of the extent to which the rights of persons participating in proceedings have been safeguarded. As I have said, throughout its taking evidence, the Committee heard of the need to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, so that aspect of the review is essential. The amendment also specifies the bodies that must be consulted during the review. Those are the Courts and Tribunals Service, the PSNI, the Human Rights Commission, the Children's Commissioner, the Law Society and any other body or person that the Department considers appropriate. The report on the review must be laid before the Assembly. We will therefore be able to scrutinise it to make sure that live links are operating effectively or to see where things need to be improved. I therefore trust that Members will support amendment No 65. Amendment Nos 53 to 64, which propose new clauses, and amendment No 125, which proposes a new schedule, are ministerial amendments to the provisions on live links for courts and tribunals. As I said in the debate on the first group of amendments, before the introduction of the Bill, the Committee was advised of the Minister's intention to make primary legislative provision for the use of live links in courts and tribunals by way of amendment at Consideration Stage. Throughout the past few years, the Committee has considered a series of sequential statutory rules that extended the use of live links in courts and tribunals using coronavirus legislation. As the House will, no doubt, be aware, to date, there have been nine such extensions for six months at a time. The Committee recommended that those extensions be approved by the Assembly in the knowledge that the provisions would be permanently addressed through primary legislation in the Justice Bill. The Committee discussed the use of live links with the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ). During an oral evidence session on delays in the criminal justice system, members heard that the LCJ is supportive of the use of live links because they can streamline the system and save costs. In her written submission, the Lady Chief Justice commented that they:

"must be tempered with the appropriate application of the interests of justice",

with safeguards

"to maintain the integrity of the court process".

Similar concerns were raised about the ministerial amendments to the live links provisions in the Bill. It was reiterated that it is important to ensure that all those involved in the process understand their rights and that they have access to the same information remotely that they have access to when they are being seen face to face. The Committee received assurances from the Department that there are protections in place. The Lady Chief Justice has issued guidance on the use of video technology that protects the rights of defendants, victims and witnesses. The Committee held round-table engagement events with community groups and young people with lived experience of the justice system. The participants felt that there were pros and cons to the use of live links in courts and that, while it would be good to have that option, it should not be the default position. Although the young people welcomed live links, they challenged an assumption that many of us are likely to have, which is that young people are more comfortable with the use of technology, including live links. That is not necessarily the case. Some of the participating young people felt that proceedings were harder to follow via live links, or that they may not be treated as fairly, and some said that it can be a dehumanising experience. The Department advised the Committee that it is satisfied that robust safeguards are built into the new provisions, as well as there being safeguards in other supporting legislation and guidance relating to young people, and that that is sufficient for the courts to be able to address those concerns. It also advised that the few children who are defendants in a criminal trial will attend remotely only for interlocutory hearings, rather than for the trial. Having weighed up the evidence that it received, the Committee concluded that it was content with the Minister's amendments to make primary legislative provision for live links in courts and tribunals. As with the provisions in the Bill, the Committee discussed a potential amendment to monitor and evaluate the use of live links in courts and tribunals. However, the Department advised that, as the provisions have been in operation for some time, the use of live links is monitored, and provided details of work that has already been undertaken on that. The Committee discussed that further at its meeting on 16 April, and Committee members indicated that they were content not to proceed with the Committee amendment, given the existing reporting processes. However, the Committee advised the Department of its view that those reporting processes and mechanisms must be made more robust and that they should be expanded to include qualitative data, including evaluation of the operation of live links from an end-user perspective. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson on justice. First, I will speak to the Committee amendments that add the word "vulnerabilities". I have absolutely no doubt that it is scary for a child or a young person who is involved in the criminal justice system. At least, it should be scary for any young person who is involved in the justice system, because, if they are there, it is because of a very serious matter. A custody sergeant should, therefore, take vulnerabilities into consideration. I do not think that the wording in the Bill is sufficient, and neither does the Committee. The Bill states that, in a custody setting:

"the juvenile’s age, maturity and needs"

need to be taken into consideration. That wording is sprinkled in three places in the Bill. We can all ascertain somebody's age and, to a certain degree, we can measure somebody's needs, but how do we measure maturity? It is a really hard task to measure somebody's maturity compared with their age. That is why the Committee has gone down the road of trying to put in the word "vulnerabilities", and I support that. That would strengthen that provision in that a custody sergeant would have to have regard to "the juvenile's age, maturity, vulnerabilities and needs", which is important. I have been brought face to face with the criminal justice system, as I am sure that many Members have, when a parent of a young person who has been caught up in something bad has contacted me, as an MLA, to see what I can do to help. There is very limited scope for what we can do, say or advise that parent. Of course, we would always advise them to seek legal advice.

However, there have been times when I have visited a police station where a young person was being held to speak to the custody sergeant or, at least, somebody at the counter to try to get reassurance for that mother and father. That is why this is so important. I have seen young people leave a police station in absolute bits because of something that they have been caught up in and because they have been in a police station. Their parents have also been in absolute bits. Therefore, it is really important that we measure this in some way and leave no doubt about what a custody sergeant should be looking out for with regard to young people.

I will speak to my amendment, amendment No 44, which is about youth custody and supervision orders (YCSOs). The court should be able to use those tools for everyone over the age of criminal responsibility. When it comes to everyone who has matured to the age of criminal responsibility, I believe that the court should be able to use youth custody and supervision orders. Why do I say that? It is clear. When the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Committee, she said:

"In considering the new disposal outlined it is of some concern that a child under the age of 14 cannot be made subject to a youth custody and supervision order which may create difficulties with compliance. Once it is established that the court does not have the power to impose a custodial order (as a sanction of last resort) it can be anticipated that there may be an increase in 'non-compliance' cases. The age limits proposed for the new custodial disposal may be problematic as it has the potential for offenders brought before the Youth Court on the same offences having outcomes which are age dependant. It is entirely foreseeable that, solely on the basis of age, one co-accused may be facing a YCSO whilst another, on the same facts may not. There is also potential, borne out in a recent case, that older controlling parties could use this freedom from risk of detention to persuade under 14s to act for them."

In other words, to be coerced. The Lady Chief Justice ended by saying:

"persuade under 14s to act for them."

That is really clear. Here we have a scenario in which a 14-year-old and a 13-year-old are in front of a Youth Court, and you are taking away the discretion of the court to use a youth custody and supervision order. That is really important. We all talk about the independence of courts and judges, and that is right, but we need to give those judges the tools to use at their discretion. My amendment fixes that by stating that anyone over the age of criminal responsibility can get a youth custody and supervision order. It is absolutely true that we do not send 10-year-olds, 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds to prison. We rarely have had to do that throughout history. We have measures in place such as diversion and youth courts, and there are measures that we can deploy to ensure that children do not go to prison. However, if a youth custody and supervision order is good enough for a 14-year-old, it is good enough for a 13-year-old. My amendment lays that down so that it simplifies when those measures can be deployed in order for the court to have a full gamut of tools at its disposal to assist it in delivering justice. That is so important, and the Lady Chief Justice states that. However, the Lady Chief Justice also states something else. It is borne out in a recent case. It could be older children, but it could also be criminal gangs or terrorist outfits —.

Yes, sure. I will.

I get the Minister's point about trafficking. However, the situation in the real world is this: if there is a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old up in front of the court, they will have to be treated differently. You are, if you like, tying the hands of the court, which should be independent and have the wide-ranging gamut of tools at its disposal to dispense justice in the way in which it sees fit. The Lady Chief Justice is correct. I get what the Minister says about people being trafficked and coerced into criminality. However, there is a reality out there. If people know that there is a differential, whether it be through the deployment of a youth custody and supervision order or the age of criminal responsibility, which we will come to in another group, there is real potential that, if that differential is known to older people or criminal gangs, they will make an effort to ensure that the people whom they coerce and deploy, whether it be to run drugs, move arms or be involved in all sorts of criminality, will be children who are below the threshold for a youth custody and supervision order or to be liable for that offence. The Assembly must take that really seriously. We could —.

3,180 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:46 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