Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 2 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

2 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5584923

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I did not quite catch what Paul Frew said.

The two themes are linked by a common principle. Whether we are dealing with children who come into contact with the justice system or introducing new technology into legal proceedings, our objective must be to ensure that the justice system remains fair, accessible and centred on the needs of those who engage with it. I will begin with the amendments relating to children and young people. The Committee amendments that require consideration of a child's vulnerabilities alongside their age and maturity are, in our view, sensible and proportionate additions to the Bill. Children and young people are not a homogenous group. Age alone does not determine how a child engages with the justice system, or with anything, for that matter. Vulnerability can arise from a wide range of circumstances — Mr Frew mentioned some of them — including disability, neurodiversity, mental ill health, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, family circumstances or, indeed, previous interactions with the care system. When decisions are being taken on bail, custody arrangements or participation through live links, it is entirely appropriate that those vulnerabilities are considered explicitly rather than being assumed to fall within broader considerations. The amendments will help ensure that decision-makers are required to look beyond chronology and consider the individual circumstances of the child who is before them. More broadly, they reflect an important principle that runs throughout modern youth justice policy: the welfare of the child must remain at the centre of decision-making. Turning to the second and larger part of this group of amendments, the SDLP welcomes the provisions and proposals relating to live links. Over past years, the Assembly has repeatedly approved extensions to temporary live link arrangements. Those measures proved their value during exceptional circumstances and demonstrated that technology can help to improve the efficiency and accessibility of our justice system. It is therefore right that we now move from temporary arrangements to a comprehensive statutory framework. The amendments that the Minister has tabled establish that framework. They create powers for courts and tribunals to permit participation by live link; establish the factors that should be considered when directions are made; provide safeguards around public access and open justice; and create the necessary offences to protect the integrity of proceedings. Taken together, the provisions represent a significant modernisation of how courts and tribunals operate. However, it is my understanding that, throughout scrutiny, the Committee was clear that the introduction of technology should not be viewed as an end in itself. The key question is not whether proceedings can be conducted remotely but whether participation through a live link allows justice to be delivered fairly and effectively. That is why a number of amendments in this group seek to strengthen safeguards around the use of live links, particularly in police custody settings. Several of the amendments focus on issues such as ensuring that participants understand the process; that legal representatives can participate effectively; that the interests of justice remain paramount when decisions are made; and that appropriate records are maintained where and when difficulties arise, as they inevitably do.

While Members may differ on the detail of some of the provisions — I look forward to engaging further in that debate — the underlying principle is an important one. Access to justice means much more than simply being present when justice is being deliberated on and dispensed. Individuals must be able to understand proceedings, communicate effectively with their legal representatives and participate in a meaningful way. Technology should remove barriers to participation, not create new ones. We also welcome the Committee amendment that would require a review of the operation of live links in police custody. I understand that the Committee heard a range of views on the potential benefits of those arrangements. The amendment also recognises that police custody presents a different environment from a courtroom or tribunal setting. Given that those powers would be new, it is entirely appropriate that the Assembly build a mechanism for review into the legislation from the outset. A formal review would allow us to assess whether the arrangements were operating as intended, whether safeguards were sufficient, and whether any unintended consequences had emerged. That is good legislative practice. Taken together, this group of amendments seeks to achieve two worthwhile objectives. The first is to ensure that decisions affecting children and young people properly reflect their individual circumstances, vulnerabilities and welfare, and the second is to modernise our justice system through the use of technology while ensuring that fairness, effective participation and access to justice remain at the heart of proceedings. Those are objectives that the SDLP supports.

774 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