Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

1 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4562903

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you. I will resume the remarks that I was making in my capacity as a private Member on Part 2 of the Bill, which is on children's bail and custody. I will refer to the accommodation situation —.

I will move to issues on accommodation when a child is granted bail. Whilst the aim may be to keep children from custody except as a last resort, we are familiar with the practical difficulties that can arise around accommodation for children and young people who are afforded bail. We note that the intended provision of accommodation has had to be shelved as a result of budgetary constraints. That is a very difficult policy area in which safety, rights and practicalities are all in play and are sometimes competing. We are aware of the need for proportionality and appropriateness in bail conditions but are cautious about unconditional bail being standard, as proposed in the Bill, because we recognise that some conditions can be as simple as a direction to remain out of or to stay within a given area, or even the imposition of a curfew, and that those conditions are often welcomed by parents. Again, we are conscious of the impact of those provisions on the child, the victim and the complainant. While custody is not ideal or preferred, it is sometimes, regrettably, the safest option for a child. Where social services decline to take a child because of previous violence to peers or staff, the alternatives may involve B&Bs or other accommodation where they could be subject to predators. None of those issues is necessarily easy and will merit due consideration, including around safeguarding. We wish to develop our knowledge of current practice, understand the distinctions that the proposals bring and further tease out, in practical terms, some of the areas that are contained herein as we progress and hear from interested parties. Part 3 relates to live links, specifically for police interviews, extension of detention, warrants for further detention and provisions around consent for those who are under 18 or for vulnerable adults. We anticipate further provisions to cover live links in courts by way of amendment. We have been advised by the Department that considerable work is under way in that regard. We have no objections to the provisions embedding live links technology, albeit we have always said that innovation in the administration of criminal court proceedings must be weighed against ensuring the integrity of the wider process and ensuring that the quality of evidence and witness testimony is upheld. In principle, we support the use of live links, but we will want to see the full set of proposals and to consider the outworkings. There are a number of distinct policy areas in Part 4. Some are tidying up exercises, while others are technical and/or more complicated to grasp. Although some areas initially appear to be straightforward, such as the inclusions around the Policing Board, we will wish to examine in more detail all the proposals, including, but not limited to, the no bill provisions and those around legal aid and criminal records certificates. My colleagues will cover some of those topics in more detail in the rest of the debate as the House has already heard plenty from me. Suffice it to say that, thus far, each briefing that we have had has been reasonably high level, and we will need to delve into the issues throughout each part of the Bill much more deeply to fully appreciate the implications and consequences of all that is before us. As it stands, we are already in receipt of briefing papers from stakeholders and interested third parties. We look forward to engaging with them further as we take and consider their evidence and submissions. It is important to state that the Department has had years and, in some cases, months to work up the policies. Therefore, the Committee will absolutely need to take its time to ensure that we have all that we need to fully understand and effectively scrutinise all that comes before us and the consequences — unintended or otherwise — as best we can. We are charged with effective and thorough scrutiny, and that is our intention. In presumption of the progression of the Bill today, I assure the House and the Department of the DUP's due diligence in as constructive a manner as possible for the betterment of the justice system as we move to the next stage.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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