Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

9 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5601961

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I did not see the point in my getting up and saying again what I have now said multiple times during this debate, when the Member was not present to hear it. First, today's debate has been useful in providing clarity to those who have engaged in it around the intent of these amendments and how the provisions will be delivered in practice. It is a significant step forward in creating a cohesive system across the UK regions that will safeguard the public and vulnerable members of our society from the actions of those who have proven themselves to be unsuitable for a role in law enforcement. I acknowledge, as many have in the Chamber today, the difficult job that the PSNI has to do and the challenging role that a police officer has to fulfil. However, it is also the case that the role carries with it a lot of power and influence. For that reason, it is right that police officers should be held to a high standard of conduct. Although it is difficult to predict the impact that a single piece of legislation can have on the criminal justice system, it is important to note the findings on police recruitment and vetting practices of several relevant reports. The report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on abuse of position for sexual purposes by PSNI officers, the Langdale review, the Angiolini inquiry and, most recently, the Katie Simpson review have all emphasised the necessity to ensure that robust and cohesive systems are in place that will safeguard against the wrong people gaining roles that, by their nature, afford them a position of trust and authority. Either through intent or unconscious inability, those individuals have proven their unsuitability for the role, and they should be prevented from gaining access to potential victims in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. The proposed amendments are an important step towards closing that legislative gap and aligning us with the rest of the UK to create a cohesive system of legislation and cooperation. The public and those who are vulnerable, either through their ongoing circumstances or through an unexpected incident, ought to know that they are protected from individuals who seek to abuse the position of trust in which they have been placed. We regularly ask people who have experienced trauma to go to the police to report the incident to them, including victims of domestic and sexual violence and abuse. It is important that, when they go to the PSNI, they are not engaging with someone who themselves might exploit that position of trust and access to do further harm. We need to take the issue seriously when it comes to barred and advisory lists. In light of recent cases in which individuals who were employed to protect society have abused their position, and given some of the horrifying outcomes that we are aware of as a result, I believe that the amendments will ensure that we have a cohesive system of safeguards in place to prevent such people from gaining further employment in roles that would afford them similar access and opportunity to abuse. That is a significant step in addressing behaviours that have no place in law enforcement and in protecting our citizens from those who may be predatory and may seek out a job that gives them status or in some way absolves them from the kind of scrutiny that others would expect. A lot of discussion has taken place and concern has been expressed about the retrospective effect of the provisions on barred and advisory lists. I have taken time to set out the limitations on those provisions that I envisage coming forward as regulations. The provisions will have a slight retrospective effect; it is limited and will apply only in specific circumstances and be subject to a number of safeguards. The provisions have been drafted to align the Northern Ireland police conduct regulations with those in operation in England and Wales. New clause 23A sets out the circumstances in which the regime for former officer proceedings can be applied: conditions A, B and C. Condition A is that:

"the person ceases to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland after the allegation first comes to the attention"

of the appropriate authority. Condition B is that:

"the person had ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland before the allegation first came to the attention"

of the appropriate authority and that

"the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the allegation first coming to the attention"

of the appropriate authority

"does not exceed the period specified in regulations".

For example, the regulations in England and Wales, which we intend to align with, limit that period to one year. The Chief Constable then takes the decision as to whether it is reasonable to recall that individual. Condition C is that:

"the person had ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland before the allegation first came to the attention"

of the appropriate authority;

"the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the allegation first coming to the attention"

of the appropriate authority

"exceeds the period specified for the purposes of condition B, and ... the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, the person could have been dealt with by dismissal"

if they had still been serving. There is an extra layer of protection in that case. Further to that, in circumstances in which condition C applies, disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the person only if the ombudsman, as the corollary for the Independent Office for Police Conduct here, determines that taking those proceedings would be reasonable and proportionate. The net effect of the modifications that we need to make will allow cases in which condition A applies for disciplinary proceedings commenced to reach conclusion, even should they retire or resign. Clause 23A(8)(a) specifies that subsequent regulations:

"may not make provision in relation to a person who ceases to be a police officer before"

the primary legislation comes into operation. Only when the Act is commenced will we have a situation in which someone who retires after that point will be amenable under those particular rules. However, it will permit provision to be made for those who cease to be a police officer after it comes into operation even in circumstances in which the alleged conduct occurred prior to the primary legislation. To be clear, only when this becomes operational will the start date of the ability to recall someone who retires kick in, and that person would need to retire on or after that start date. It is only possible to make provision in relation to those who cease to be officers after the primary provisions come into operation. Anyone who retires in the interim will be unaffected. When it comes to reassurance that Members have sought, the intention is that regulations will be enacted once the primary provision is in place. We will aim to mirror the equivalent provisions already in operation in England and Wales. However, we are willing to engage with Members of the House, members of the Committee, the PSNI, the Police Federation and others about how that should look in our particular circumstances. The provisions in England and Wales specify that for condition A, where the allegation had already been noted before the individual ceased to be an officer, there is a one-year limitation on that recall. Sorry: condition A means that the proceedings can continue, even if the officer ceases to be an officer after the allegation has come to the attention of the authority. Condition B applies in cases in which the individual ceased to be an officer prior to the allegation coming to their attention but it happens within 12 months. That one will be for the PSNI. In England and Wales, it is 12 months. I see no reason why we would wish to deviate from the 12-month limitation here. Condition C applies in cases in which the individual ceased to be an officer and it took longer than 12 months for the allegation to come to light. In England and Wales, under those circumstances, you can go to disciplinary only where you have a special determination by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It is envisaged that the Police Ombudsman will fulfil the equivalent function here. However, it will mirror the England and Wales provisions in setting out a specific framework, via which the ombudsman will make a special determination. The ombudsman will consider the seriousness of the alleged gross misconduct, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and the public interest. In making any determination, it will also consider the nature and seriousness of that conduct. To be clear, those regulations have been in operation in England and Wales since 2017, and we continue to engage with the Home Office on good practice. In England and Wales, condition C is limited in time to the point where the police code of conduct was set in legislation, which, in England and Wales, was 2012. Again, I see no reason why we would depart from that mechanism, although, again, I am open to engaging with Members and others as the regulations are drafted. The equivalent date here would be 1 July 2016, which is when our code of conduct came into force. It is our intention to have a time limit.

I have been clear about the burden that legacy places on the Department of Justice, the ombudsman's office and the Police Service. With new legacy arrangements coming down the track from Westminster, I do not want to reopen or create more work in the justice system when there are alternative mechanisms for those to be addressed.

Amendment No 76 would allow the Police Ombudsman to submit an early report where it is clear at that point in the investigation that the officer concerned has committed gross misconduct. On the way through an investigation, that may well be reached well before a final decision on whether the criminal threshold for prosecution has been met. That will allow an early report to the Chief Constable in order for him to make a decision on whether they should have a special case hearing, as we discussed. That could reduce the time spent on suspension at a cost to the public purse while awaiting the outcome of a criminal case, provided that any resultant disciplinary proceedings can be judged not to prejudice the criminal case. That would, without doubt, require the responsible person to liaise with the PPS to ensure that it would not do so. It would also allow the PSNI access to the information that is required to commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings, so long as it does no harm. That is something that not only the Police Ombudsman believes would be helpful but which two Chief Constables and a number of other senior officers have said they would find helpful. It would enable them to move more swiftly to ensure that the person is removed from service if they are unfit, particularly in serious offence cases where you are dealing with gross misconduct.

All of this is about keeping the public safe, ensuring that we have confidence in the PSNI and ensuring that the good officers who put themselves between us and danger every day do not have their reputation damaged by people in the organisation who act in bad faith, abuse their position and seek to bring the organisation into disrepute. I never want to be in a position where we need to use the regulations. I would like to believe that every officer who joins the PSNI will do so with the desire and intent to serve people lawfully, diligently and with the highest personal and professional standards. However, that may not be the case. When it is not, it is important for the protection of those diligent officers, the public and others with whom they may work in the future that we have barred and advisory lists so that no one who is under suspicion of poor practice at home can simply go and work in another service elsewhere. It is also important that that can be dispatched as quickly as is practicable so that we do not lean on the public purse and spend money on such cases as, we know, has happened in the past. For instance, we know that an officer who was suspended for a prolonged period, on full pay, worked a second job during their suspension. We know that those things have happened. That is what we want to prevent. It is not to besmirch every officer, and it is certainly not to open up another round of legacy opportunities. It is solely to ensure that officers reach the highest standards and are protected from colleagues who do not.

2,178 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