Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Daniel McCrossan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

9 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5602194

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On behalf of the SDLP, I rise in support of amendment Nos 74, 75 and 90. I agree with Members across the House that we must act in the strongest possible terms to tackle the real issue: the scourge of drunk- and drug-driving in our community. Behind all the numbers, statistics and debates, it is very much a human story, because choices that individuals have made to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated under the influence of drugs or alcohol have changed the lives of countless families for ever. That is at the heart of the entire debate. There are some very simple questions. Are we, as an Assembly, doing enough to prevent tragedy? Can we do more? Are we doing enough to deter people from breaking the law and acting so recklessly that they put their lives and others' lives at risk? For too long, families with whom I have engaged on this important issue have said no. Too often, our laws and our enforcement model operate after the damage — the collision, the serious injury or, unfortunately, in many instances, the death — has been done and a family's world has entirely collapsed. The purpose of the law should not simply be to punish after a tragedy but to protect human life where it can. That is why the amendments deserve strong consideration and support. Amendment No 74 introduces powers for "Drugs testing at authorised check-points". That means that, under proper authorisation and safeguards, the police would be able to require motorists who are stopped at checkpoints to cooperate with roadside drugs testing. That represents a significant shift from the current position, where testing is generally tied to suspicion and there is an element of discretion, often based on observation or signs of impairment, which is not always reliable, depending on the resilience of the individual when it comes to intoxication. Under this change to the legislation, authorised operations could proactively screen drivers in designated circumstances, creating more visible and consistent enforcement presence and adding to the necessary awareness of the fact that our Police Service is on the ball on the issue. Amendment No 75 goes further and introduces a duty to administer preliminary tests where, of course, the legal conditions are met. Rather than leaving testing solely to discretion, it establishes a clear expectation that officers will carry out roadside testing when statutory thresholds are satisfied. That creates greater consistency in enforcement, reduces the risk of missed interventions and helps to ensure that similar cases are treated in similar ways across different areas. Those are important considerations, because they recognise that the current framework has its limitations and the cost is just too great. At present, as I said, much of enforcement relies on observation, often meaning that police need to have pulled in a person whose impairment is visible or about whom they have a reasonable suspicion. There are too many gaps in that, and, unfortunately, too many have fallen between two stools. The amendments move the law towards earlier intervention and a more preventative model, for which the PSNI and, indeed, countless families have campaigned for many years. Such a model identifies risk before harm occurs rather than relying on evidence gathered after a serious incident has occurred. Drug-driving is different, because drug impairment is not always visible; indeed, there is a need for wider education in society generally about picking up on the signs of someone being intoxicated by drugs. Often, depending on the drugs that a person has consumed, they can appear calm, relaxed and normal. They can convince themselves that they are capable of driving, in some instances, but their judgement most certainly can be impaired, their reaction times slowed and their decision-making affected. When that happens behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, the consequences can be and have been catastrophic. I have said many times on the public record that any individual who gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicated by drugs needs to appreciate that that car quickly becomes a weapon — a weapon that has claimed countless lives, left others seriously injured and had profound consequences for the person responsible. We cannot continue to rely on hoping that somebody appears to be impaired. The amendments move us away from that, and they are welcome. The key thing is that, if the amendments are made and come into effect and people know that they can be stopped and tested at authorised checkpoints, we will find that that will become a deterrent in itself, and people will think twice before taking that reckless and unnecessary action. Let us be honest about another failing. Dangerous attitudes remain among some that drug-driving is somehow less dangerous than drink-driving. That needs to be challenged at the earliest possible stage. We need to create greater awareness of the dangers of getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. We should be having those conversations with our young people of school age. Some believe that they can get away with drug-driving because it is harder to detect, that it is easier to explain away or that, when somebody is not visibly intoxicated, the risk is somehow lower. Clearly, the House, along with countless families that have suffered the worst possible consequences, has said that it is not. Impairment is impairment. All too often, a family receives a knock on the door — many have — and that family does not ask whether alcohol or drugs caused it, because the outcome is the same: they have lost someone so precious to them. Lives have been changed and families devastated. Before I focus on amendment No 90, it is important that I relate something from my constituency. It is an important case that relates directly to the debate. The Minister kindly mentioned it in the House, as Ciara Ferguson did earlier. It is the case of Enda Dolan. It is a human story. Imagine a young student of 18 years of age from Killyclogher near Omagh, a few weeks into attending university in Belfast, walking up the Malone Road to his student accommodation and probably just off the phone to his parents, checking in. He was struck by a van driven by David Lee Stewart. It turned out that the driver of the van had not only been drinking heavily but had a substantial amount of drugs in his system. He struck Enda and carried that young lad 800 yards on top of his vehicle before braking and pulling his body from the van. Stewart was jailed, and rightly so. The family led a powerful campaign, and the Minister heard it, as did the previous Justice Minister. The family were listened to because they spoke out clearly about how the system had failed them and how a young lad who was starting out on his life, attending university, trying to improve his circumstances and seeking out opportunities had been struck down through no fault of his own. Enda did not have a choice, but the driver of that van did. When he attended the licensed premises that he was in, he made the choice to drink 13 alcoholic beverages — multiple pints, shots and spirits. He made the choice to have a cocktail of drugs in his system, including traces of cocaine, benzodiazepines and cannabis. He made the choice when he got into that van and drove down that road. He may not have intended to hit anybody — he certainly did not intend to take Enda Dolan's life — but those were the consequences of his reckless, selfish action. That is the human story. That is why the Bill and the amendments are important. That is why the Sentencing Bill introduced by the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, is also important. The legislation will save lives. However, there is wider work that we must do to create greater awareness among our population of the serious consequences of getting into any vehicle when you are not in control. You cannot bring Enda Dolan or Jaidyn Rice back. Countless other families, many in my constituency, have spoken to me about how, they feel, the system failed them. When Enda Dolan's case eventually got to court, the perpetrator was sentenced to seven years: three and a half to be served in jail and three and a half on licence. The family were absolutely furious and rightly made the legitimate point that Enda had not had a choice whereas David Lee Stewart did.

At the Court of Appeal, it was decided that that unduly lenient sentence should be increased. Ultimately, the Dolans felt that their voices were heard. There was public outrage. In order to supplement the important changes in the Justice Bill, the Sentencing Bill will be critical to ensuring that there is an increase in the sentences for those who cause death or serious injury as a result of driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I pay tribute to the Dolan family. They have waited for a long time for legislation such as this. It is positive. When Members work together and go through the necessary processes, life-changing legislation can be created.

I thank my colleague and others for tabling amendment No 90. It, too, is a very important amendment and has my full support. I live in and represent a rural constituency. While I am very aware of e-scooters and the dangers that they pose, we do not see the same concentration of them as some of the urban centres around Belfast and other areas do. However, I see young fellas in particular going out on e-scooters on country roads on which it is dangerous to walk, let alone go on an e-scooter. They are exceptionally speedy; I could not believe it when I witnessed the speed of them. It is important that, more widely, we create greater awareness among our young people about the real need to be conscious of the dangers of our roads. I ask the House to support all three of the amendments in the group.

1,688 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 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