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 5602053

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will open the debate on this group of amendments, which deals with drink- and drug-driving measures and police seizure of vehicles. This is a really important issue, one of public safety for those on our roads and footpaths, and I will delve into more detail on why I think that that is the case. I was motivated to table amendment Nos 74 and 75 because my colleague Stephen Dunne MLA asked me to attend a meeting in his constituency with the family of young Jaidyn Rice, who, sadly, lost her life on 8 July 2025 on our roads. It was clear that the family was motivated to do something as a legacy for Jaidyn. I listened to them that day and saw at first hand the work that Stephen, the family and their supporters had done to try to change the law on public safety, through Jaidyn's law, by making it tighter with regard to drug testing. I will not go into the details now, but I pay my respects and pay tribute to Jaidyn's family for the fight and campaign that it has led. The family asked us to consider the current legislative framework governing post-collision testing in Northern Ireland as it is no longer sufficient. In particular, the family believes that the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 requires an amendment to introduce stand-alone statutory provisions mandating drug testing where a road traffic collision results in a fatality or serious injury. The family is particularly concerned that the current framework risks creating an unintended gap when a collision causes life-threatening or catastrophic injuries but death occurs some time later following a period of hospitalisation. In such circumstances, the absence of mandatory testing at the point of collision may result in the loss of crucial evidence and failure to identify impairment at the relevant time. The family believes that that represents a clear risk to public confidence and the integrity of post-collision investigations. It further believes that mandatory drug testing should be available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in a manner equivalent to existing breathalyser provisions so that testing becomes an automatic and routine safeguard rather than a discretionary power dependent on subjective thresholds or subsequent developments. The family notes that article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides powers for the taking of specimens. It is firmly of the view, however, that those powers are too limited in scope and insufficiently robust, particularly in cases involving a loss of life or serious injury, and do not deliver the certainty or consistency that such grave circumstances demand. Therefore, the family believes that this specific legislative amendment is required to ensure that drug testing forms a compulsory element of post-collision procedure in fatal and serious injury cases. That is the family's stance, and I support it. Drugs are prevalent in our society. They are everywhere, all types of drugs doing all sorts of damage to people's minds and bodies. It is inevitable that those people who take or abuse drugs spill out on to our roads. That is where the danger lies, and we, as a party, are trying to address that. Under article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, police officers have the power to require preliminary impairment testing where reasonable suspicion exists, but the power is discretionary and relies on the personal judgement of the attending officer.

I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of our police officers and the traffic police officers who, day and daily, combat that sort of thing and keep our roads safe. This is not a slight to any police officer; it is about making sure that we take a consistent approach where, in practice, as policing bodies acknowledge, a grey area has been created. Testing decisions may vary between officers and incidents, meaning that, even in the case of serious road traffic collisions, including those involving multiple driving offences or fatalities, drug testing is not automatically carried out. That inconsistency risks the loss of crucial forensic evidence, unequal investigative standards, weakened prosecutions and, for bereaved families, stress and uncertainty. Jaidyn's law proposes a clear amendment to article 17 to introduce mandatory drug testing in defined, serious circumstances. Testing would become automatic where a driver commits multiple offences while the vehicle is in motion or where a road traffic collision involves serious injury or results in death. That would remove the reliance on individual officer interpretation, replacing it with a consistent statutory requirement that, I believe, the police will support and welcome. Why is that change necessary? Often, drug impairment is not visibly detectable at the roadside. Unlike in cases of alcohol intoxication, drivers may appear outwardly normal despite having significant impairment that affects reaction time, judgement and hazard awareness. Current legislation depends on an officer's suspicion, so impaired drivers might not be tested, vital evidence might be permanently lost and investigations might, at a later time, face evidential challenges. Mandatory testing ensures that every serious incident is investigated to the same evidential standards. The benefits of that law are that it will remove the grey area in enforcement; provide clear operational direction for the police; protect officers by replacing judgement calls with statutory procedures; and preserve crucial evidence in the case of serious incidents. It will strengthen prosecution outcomes and support transparency and justice for victims and families. It will act as a strong deterrent against drug-impaired driving, which is where we want to be. This matters because, when a road traffic collision results in death or serious, life-changing injury, families must have confidence that every possible step has been taken. Mandatory testing ensures that no evidential opportunity is missed, that no family is left with unanswered questions and that every serious collision is treated equally under the law. The aim of Jaidyn's law is to make a proportionate and practical amendment to modernise road traffic enforcement in Northern Ireland and to align the investigation of drug impairment with the procedural certainty that is applied to alcohol testing. The reform is not about expanding police powers. It is about ensuring that those powers are applied consistently and transparently. In the most serious cases, that means eliminating any grey area and the resulting, added trauma caused to families by their loved ones' lives not being regarded as "reasonable cause" for testing. That is why this is so important. I will speak to, and through, the amendments that I tabled along with Maurice Bradley, Brian Kingston and, importantly, Stephen Dunne, who first brought this to our attention. I pay tribute to Stephen for his work not only with me on the amendments but for the family of Jaidyn Rice; I commend the Member for that. In our lives as MLAs, we sometimes have to deal with horrific, serious cases, and that which Stephen, with the family, has had to deal with, is just one such case. I pay tribute to him, because he has walked with the family through it all, including the meetings that he has had with the Minister, the Infrastructure Minister, and the police. We have come to the conclusion that the House should pass these amendments.

Amendment No 74 is on "Drugs testing at authorised check-points". It is important that drug testing be on a par with alcohol testing. Who knows the measure and the scale of the problem out there? I suspect that the police do not even know how many people on our roads are under the influence of drugs. It is very hard to detect. It is very hard to know. As I said earlier, there will not always be a visible clue. For decades, we had campaign after campaign on alcohol and drink-driving, but I think we are now in a position where drug-driving is probably more prevalent than drink-driving. That is a testament to the society in which we live and the state of society with regard to drugs. Drugs are dangerous in their own right, and if they are abused, there are major problems. When that spills on to our roads, it can hurt anybody and everybody — young and old — and it can affect their lives forever.

1,370 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:52 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