Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- 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 5584948
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The second group of amendments relates to child bail and custody arrangements and the appropriate use of live links. On the arrangements for bail for children, the Bill states that a custody officer must consider the juvenile's characteristics of "age, maturity and needs". As Members have heard, the Justice Committee agreed that the word "vulnerabilities" should be added to that list to ensure that vulnerabilities are considered, rather than being overlooked if they are not captured by the existing terms. That addition is made by the Committee's amendment Nos 41 to 43. The use of live links came to the fore during COVID-19, although it had existed before that. It is now well established as an option in most statutory services. The Justice Committee agreed that live links can be an aid in our courts and justice system when face-to-face business is not possible. It is therefore right that we make provision for the use of live link technology in a way that is not framed by the context of COVID. As Members have heard, however, we are concerned that online communication reduces the opportunity to read body language and provides less nuance and less opportunity for quiet conversation and can be uncomfortable for those who are not used to it. The Committee has therefore agreed to amendment No 52, which would introduce a review of the use of live links. It states that the Department of Justice must appoint a "person or body" to:
"monitor and review the operation of live link arrangements ... for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective",
and publish a report on that. The report must include:
"the number of times the live link arrangements have been conducted in each year of the review period, broken down by reference to policing district and offence".
I will in a wee second. The report must also include:
"an assessment of the extent to which the live link arrangements safeguard the rights of arrested persons, including children".
I will give way.
We know of the Member's enthusiasm as a Member and as Chair of the Committee.
OK. I am nearly finished. As has been said, the DUP is not minded to support Sinn Féin amendment Nos 49 to 51 on the topic of live links, but we will support the other amendments in the group.
394 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.56 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
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.