Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- 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 5601635
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member makes a really valid point. She comes from a very learned position, because she is on the Policing Board and spent time before that dealing with similar issues on the Justice Committee. I get that position, and I hear the Member loud and clear about how moving those things on is as much for the police officers involved and their colleagues as anything else. I hear the points about the significance and importance of the measures, and I thank the Member who tabled the amendments. She knows that I have great sympathy for all Members who table amendments and try to change the law, so I commend her on that. I also commend the fact that Nuala put special conditions in her amendments, which are:
"(a) that misconduct proceedings would not prejudice any criminal proceedings, (b) that there is sufficient evidence, in the form of written statements or other documents, without the need for further evidence, whether written or oral, to establish on the balance of probabilities that the conduct of the member of the police force concerned constitutes gross misconduct, and (c) that it is in the public interest for the member of the police force concerned to cease to be a member without delay."
Those are very special conditions that help to inform the amendments and add reassurance. In conclusion, I ask whether the Member, the Minister and their party will commit to examining whether the amendments could be strengthened and another layer of safeguards added to protect against those powers being used in a way that brings the ombudsman and the PSNI into conflict or potentially forces the hand of the PSNI to determine proceedings in a certain way. We wonder whether it might be appropriate to have not only PSNI agreement to fast-track those cases but a requirement for the PPS to attest that the exercise of the powers in amendment Nos 76 and 77 in any individual case would not prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.
I thank the Member who proposed the amendments for her intervention. The DUP offers these comments in a constructive spirit, realising what we are trying to achieve. I look forward to listening to Members' contributions and to the Minister's winding-up speech on the group 4 amendments.
377 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: 0.04 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.93 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:48 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.