Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

9 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5601604

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for that intervention. It is right that we try to close the loophole that allows people to retire with the intention to evade scrutiny and investigation for misconduct. The trick here is how we do that effectively without unintended consequences. I suppose that we are yet to be convinced about that, Minister, to be completely open and honest with you. We have concerns about amendment No 68. I am happy to work with you, your Department and your party over the next few weeks and months to iron out some of our concerns about that. In general, we are clear that, given Northern Ireland's unique circumstances in the past and in the future, the way we police here, the divided nature of our society, the terrorist threat and everything else that goes with it, it is far from straightforward to say that, because those powers are in place in England and Wales, they should apply here and be copied and pasted. We will explore that in the coming hours and days as we proceed. We also see no real clarity in new clause 23A that misconduct proceedings would not be initiated or resumed for what could reasonably be viewed as allegations of trivial matters. The Minister said in one of her interventions that it would have to be gross or serious misconduct, if I quote her correctly.

It needs to be serious misconduct. That might be in the text of the amendment, but what defines "serious misconduct"? We need to tease that out in the coming hours.

I thank the Member for her intervention. That is helpful. We will proceed with the debate and see how it plays out. Another worry is that we cannot be certain of the practical consequences of the amendment if too much detail is left to regulation. That can be teased out with the Minister, the various parties and even the Committee, as she rightly said, over the coming months, in order to allay or assuage any concerns that my party and others may have. I will move on to amendment Nos 76 and 77 from Nuala McAllister. We support the intention of the amendments, which is to ensure that, where gross misconduct is identified in a Police Ombudsman's investigation and before criminal proceedings are concluded, that information can be passed to the PSNI in a timely way that enables the swift dismissal of the officer responsible. It is, of course, in the public interest for officers who malign the reputation of the PSNI in such a way and whose offending may represent a threat to the public or result in serious criminal convictions to be dealt with speedily and robustly. However, that aim must be operationalised in a way that does not prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings or live investigations, undermine the role of the PSNI as the employer in those cases or, indeed, set aside due process for police officers who are affected. We have some hesitation in supporting the amendments, because they largely depend on the Police Ombudsman's assumption of what the PSNI would do in any given circumstances. That sits uncomfortably with us, in that, in times past, the ombudsman's recommendations have not always been accepted, either partly or fully, by the PSNI as the appropriate authority for disciplinary matters. From the framing of the amendment, it is not clear whether the PSNI or the Chief Constable would have to agree to receiving a report from the ombudsman in those cases. Let me explain what I mean. We are giving the power to the Police Ombudsman to fast-track or to put in a report on an investigation or proceedings, but we want to know whether there is another way, the other way, with regard to the Chief Constable agreeing to receive that report —

I will give way to Nuala and then the Minister, or, if you want to sort it out between you, the Minister can go first.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 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