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 5601927

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for that. It has been a worthy exchange that has really fleshed the issue out. We have heard it now: it will be recorded in Hansard, and we know the case of Pepper v Hart and all those things. The Minister has indicated that we are talking about 2012 or 2016, so we certainly are not talking about the 1980s, the 1990s or the 1970s. That gives me the reassurance that I need. I want to support this and see the bad cop brought back and the victim given justice, because there is no more despicable sight than a bent cop who has misused their authority. They damage everybody who has gone out to try to do their job with distinction and honour. I will move on to amendment No 69, which will introduce the barred list. I am glad to see it. I called for it some time ago. I can tell of a case in which a second officer — I will not mention their name — was dismissed from the PSNI. Because we do not have the barred list, which I asked for in 2019, that police officer, despite having been dismissed — there was a sexual element to it — turned up suddenly in Border Force. What happened when they were enforcing the law in Border Force? They were the subject of an allegation that was very similar to what happened in the PSNI. That is a gaping loophole that should never have been allowed. I therefore absolutely support having a barred list that clearly states who is not fit to be a police officer in Northern Ireland. If they are not fit to be a police officer here, they are not fit to be a police officer in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales or in any other law enforcement body. We need to remember that there is a threat in Northern Ireland that makes our policing distinct, and we should ensure, through the regulations that follow, that nothing would jeopardise the security of a police officer or an ex-police officer.

Perhaps the Minister will give me some assurance on that.

Thank you for that. I am glad to hear that. That will reassure a lot of police officers. I support the introduction of the barred list. It is vital that that happens. I support amendment Nos 76 and 77. It is worth saying that the power to take a fast-track case, as it is colloquially known in the police misconduct world — a sad world when you are in it — and what we describe as a "special case hearing" is vital. In short, it used to be that if someone was being criminally investigated, the police professional standards department could not take a disciplinary case. There could have been a good reason for that, but, sometimes, it was simply daft, because there was clear evidence that someone was not suitable to be a police officer and would very easily be dismissed in a misconduct hearing, but you had a very long criminal case to take. I am glad that the loophole has been closed. The power to do that was not extended to the ombudsman, and now it will be. I know of a case that was recently brought to court, which a senior member of staff from the ombudsman's office briefed me on seven years ago, in 2019. When they briefed me, there was sufficient evidence in the file that I was given, including screenshots and text messages, for me to dismiss that officer just like that. That was seven years ago. However, there was a legal gap, which meant that the officer had to stay in service, suspended, simply because we did not have the legal power. Had the Police Service of Northern Ireland and not the ombudsman been investigating the case, we would have been able to dismiss the officer just like that because of incontrovertible evidence. I welcome the closing of the loophole. It will allow bad cops to be dealt with quicker and it will be cheaper. Bear in mind that when an officer is at home on full pay for seven years, their pension increments are also growing. I know of police officers who have been off work for so long that they have hit the point at which they can retire with a full pension. Once you hit 60, you cannot stop someone from retiring, and they sail into the sunset. I know of one police officer who was suspended for seven years, and, by year 5, the police had lost track of him. They did not know where he was and thought that he was in another country, but the pay cheques kept flowing. It was astonishing.

That is a good point. It is very complex. There are times when the Deputy Chief Constable can decline a resignation. It depends on an officer's level of service, their age and whether they are retiring with a full pension. I will make another point, and then I will summarise my position. One thing that you have to be aware of is that there is an irony in this, and it sounds like a bit of a contradiction. If you give the PSNI the power to take a case after someone has left the organisation, you will, in my view — it is not actually a problem if I can explain it logically — see more officers retire before an investigation is complete. Let me give you an example. This is where the public commentary on this is not always informed. I will give you a practical example. Someone came to me with a police officer who was alleged to have committed a criminal offence. The investigation was going to take about three years, but it was a serious investigation. I was confident that we would get a case in the end, but I had nothing in the meantime. If that officer offers to resign and you take their resignation, you save yourself three years' pay. Take an inspector who earns £55,000 or £60,000 per year: that is £200,000 plus pension contributions. It may be that, now that the Police Service can still take a case after the person has retired, you are more likely to say, "I am going to bite your hand off. Leave our organisation. I am going to stop paying you today. When we finish our investigation, if need be we will bring you back". Sometimes, when the Police Service allows someone to resign during an investigation, it is because they are saving £50,000, £60,000, £70,000, £80,000 or £90,000 a year. I know of a superintendent who earned £80,000 a year, and he was suspended for five years, which cost £400,000. There is sometimes a cost reason for accepting a resignation. It is now easier to do this because we are going to be able to bring them back after they retire, and you have stopped the public purse taking a hit. I will summarise my position and our party's position. On the basis that I have a red-line caveat, which is that I am concerned about opening a fresh front for legacy cases. Therefore, the only reason that I am supporting the amendment to introduce disciplinary proceedings against former officers is because of the clear understanding that I have from the Minister that the regulations will specify a time limit that will not go back as far as the Troubles. On amendment No 69, I fully support a police barring list that covers every UK law enforcement agency and details every police officer or retired police officer who is not fit to hold a role in law enforcement. The caveat is protection for their security, given that they have served in Northern Ireland. I support giving the Police Ombudsman the power to bring a case before criminal matters are concluded, on the basis that those powers work very well for the PSNI, and it allows police misconduct to be dealt with swiftly. There is no place for bad cops. I will say two things, though. We must guard against jumping on good officers when a clip appears on social media. They are not the officers who we should be worried about; it is the officers who are predatory and corrupt that we should worry about. It is not about the officers who are out trying to arrest someone at 3.00 am, with the Monday morning quarterback asking questions about how they exercised their powers. The good cops must be protected. The second thing — I say this to every police officer in our land — is that there is a culture that emerged in the PSNI — I watched it at first hand — where senior police officers, particularly those above the rank of superintendent, were not held to account in the same way as the more junior officers of constable and sergeant. That created a huge fairness issue, and I will always be watching to see that our senior police officers are held to account in the same way as the rank-and-file police officers. With those caveats in place, I am glad to support the amendments. They tighten up some loopholes, and, if it is done right, we can have a swift, fair and accountable misconduct system for the PSNI.

1,563 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