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 5584867

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister and Emma Sheerin for their contributions. It is a good debate. However, we will debate raising the age of criminal responsibility in another group. Therefore, it could well be that the age of criminal responsibility lands at 14 anyway. In effect, you could vote for something that makes what I am trying to achieve a reality. If that is the case — that is why the amendment simplifies it — treating it, capping it or keeping it at the age of criminal responsibility means that those youth custody and supervision orders can be used. If it were at the minute, it would be 10, but, if it changes and it is the will of the Assembly that it changes, it could be 12, 14 or 16. I am simplifying the use of youth custody and supervision orders by my amendment. That does away with the concern that the Lady Chief Justice has, first, with regard to the coercion of younger people and, secondly, the fact that there can be no differential when you are faced in a court with two children aged 13 and 14. My amendment simplifies that completely, so I plead with the House to consider the amendment seriously and to consider supporting it. I go on to Sinn Féin's amendment Nos 49, 50 and 51. On the face of it, a lot of that stuff is sensible and good, and I like to think that it would be common practice. The question that I have, which I put tentatively, as with the last group of amendments, is whether it is needed in the Bill or whether it can be done though PACE codes, which are operational for the police or the courts. I do not know the answer to that, but I know that the custody stuff will be done under PACE codes, so those can be covered without putting them in the Bill. Again, I am sure that the Minister might cover that in her contribution. I wholeheartedly support the Committee's amendment No 52. We need a review of live links in the custody suite, because it is a new thing. It is brand new, to the point that it has not been used before in a really stressful scenario and situation. We will have somebody in a custody suite, no matter what age they are, to be fair, and they are being interviewed remotely: well, we all know what it is like when we have to use Zoom, even to have a meeting, as opposed to being in the room with the person. It is much more complicated through Zoom. Think about how much more complicated it is in the stressful setting of a custody suite. Think of the jeopardy and how much more pressurised that is if the person who is being interviewed, be it a defendant, a person of interest or a witness, is talking through a screen to somebody who is miles away, so we need the review mechanisms. While I am at it, I will speak to my review of the use of live links, which is amendment No 65, a new clause. We really need to review how live links are used in the court setting. I will say one thing: when we got the Justice Bill, all the live links stuff to do with custody was in there. However, there was nothing in the Bill at Second Reading about court. Live links had been operational since the Coronavirus Act 2020, and, for the life of me, I do not know why that could not be contained in the Bill and how it came after the custody stuff, which, I thought, would have been more complicated. However, with the amendments that the Minister has proposed, we can see just how complicated it is.

Yes.

I get that from the Minister. I understand that explanation. It just shows how complicated it is and how scant the Coronavirus Act was with regard to the pressurised system at that time, as we rushed through legislation to create something that created the live links in courts. We need a review.

I have always supported the use of live links in court. I have always commended that element of the Coronavirus Act, even though I detest that Act and everything — the damage and the harm — that it did to our people. I am therefore a big supporter of live links in our courts and, now, their extension to custody suites. As a big supporter, however, I believe that we need a review, because I have heard stories and seen scenarios in which people have appeared in court via a live link and something awful has happened, but they did not realise that it had. They might not have heard something appropriately or correctly, and, as a result, they might not have got proper representation. In one case, someone was charged with contempt of court. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure that a case was reported on in which there was a contempt of court charge because someone did not feel that they had got their day in court, and, when they objected, they were held in contempt. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure that that has been reported. I am almost sure that I know of the case and the people involved.

Yes.

900 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