Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Jon Burrows

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

9 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5601890

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Miss McAllister for that insightful piece of evidence. First, let me say this: the Police Service of Northern Ireland has made a mess of misconduct down the years. I declare an interest in that I was in the PSNI and was the appropriate authority and decision-maker to determine whether a case was taken against someone. It is important to set this in context. What often happened in the PSNI was that good officers were targeted while the bad, corrupt officer got away with things. When I first went into the professional standards department (PSD), I saw a whiteboard on which was listed the officers who were suspended. There were officers who were suspended for up to eight years on full pay — eight years at a cost of, maybe, £500,000 in pay — at the end of which there was no case. It is important that we focus on and deal with this properly, because the public deserve accountability, but those who are on the front line making quick decisions deserve fairness. Having put that context out there — it is about how we can have a swift and fair misconduct system — I will look at the amendments in this group. The first one is about taking a misconduct case after someone retires or resigns from the PSNI. In 2019, when I was the appropriate authority, I supported such a proposal. I put a paper up to the then Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, calling for that power, because that happens in England and Wales. There have been officers — I know them — who were dismissed from the PSNI or left while facing misconduct allegations. Those officers, because no case was taken against them, had no criminal record or record of misconduct and were able to take other jobs, while the victim or complainant was unable to get any justice. I support, in principle, the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Police Ombudsman's being able to bring back an officer who has retired or left, to put them in front of a misconduct hearing and to have a case heard against them. It is worth saying that, in reality, when that happens in England and Wales, the ex-officer rarely turns up, so the case is heard in absentia, and there is no meaningful sanction, because they have already left. However, the victim gets, at least, a declaration that that person did x or y. I am aware of a case in England in which someone was accused of sexually grooming females. A criminal case could not be proven, but the officer was at least brought in front of a hearing, the victims were able to give their testimony and there was a finding of guilt. That is important. I support it in principle. I am concerned — I make no apology for it — about enabling the ombudsman to take a case against someone who has retired. Under our current legislation on police misconduct, it is only the professional standards department that can authorise an officer to be brought before a misconduct hearing. The ombudsman can recommend that that take place, but the decision is made by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Are we talking about amendment No 68 or the amendment about special case hearings?

I am talking about amendment No 68 — taking a case against someone who has left the PSNI.

Right. I will look into that again. My second point — I will labour it — is that I am prepared to support this only on the basis of a clear assurance that the power to bring before a misconduct hearing an officer who has retired does not extend to the period of the Troubles. That is a contested space in which there is, whether we like it or not, a lack of confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the Police Ombudsman. This cannot become another extension of legacy.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:51 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