Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Doug Beattie MC

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

1 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4562942

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Second Stage allows us to debate the Bill's high-level aims and wave-topping issues. I support the Justice Committee Chair in her expansive words, which were fair and challenging. They set the tone for the way in which we have to go forward on this, and that is scrutiny and challenge. I know that, over the coming weeks and months, my party will look at and scrutinise the Bill and the detailed evidence that we will get from a variety of stakeholders.

I have confidence. I have confidence that the Justice Committee will be able to work with the Justice Department and the Minister to deal with any issues that come down the road, and there will be some. I will try to be brief, but I want to raise a couple of points because scrutiny is key. The Bill is large and, at times, quite complicated.

Part 1 is on the retention of biometric material. That was brought about, as we have been told, by the Marper and Gaughran judgements that indefinite retention of biometric and DNA material is incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Going back in time, one of the issues with implementing the findings of the Marper judgement — in 2013, 2014 or maybe 2015; I was not about at the time — was the Stormont House Agreement. The provision in the Stormont House Agreement for the retention of biometric material in legacy cases made it really complicated. There are two issues that I want to raise on the retention of biometric material. First, through scrutiny and working with the Justice Committee, I want to see how it stacks up with the very different rules on the retention of biometric material in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, particularly in the investigations that will be conducted by the ICRIR. I do not want two-tier investigations. I do not want to have a situation where DNA is retained for the legacy investigation of someone who was murdered in 1975 in the Troubles but the murder of someone else in 1975, which had nothing to do with the Troubles, does not get the same level of investigation because we have destroyed the biometric material for that case. I am not saying that that is going to be the case, but it is certainly something in the Bill that I want to look at. I have no concern that we will be able to look at that. I also note that a consultation was already been done on this in 2020. I want to look at that consultation to see whether the changes to the retention of biometrics in legacy cases, which were not there in 2020, change its effect. So, there are a couple of things that I want to look at, but, broadly, I am pretty comfortable with the 75, 50 and 25-year rule that we are talking about for qualified recordable, non-custodial and less-than-five-year offences. However, I want to see the detail. Part 2 is on bail, remand and custody for children. I and others have been lobbied hard about that. Far too many of our children are being held in the Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre over a long period of time, not all at once. Custody must always be viewed as the last resort, but we must accept that custody under PACE is the only option in some cases. We should not shy away from that. In 2022-23, 176 admissions to the Woodland Juvenile Justice Centre were related to PACE, with just three of those under sentence. The issue is that 45 people, over the same period, went in on remand. We really need to look at remand and have an acceptance, in part, that we should always make sure that children are bailed without condition. That is what we want to do but, again, we have to look at that in detail. I accept that the case that we saw in Wolverhampton, with the sentencing of two 13-year-olds for murder, will feed into the general discourse about this, but we should not allow it to. This is something very different, but it is something that we will have to think about. I will keep saying it: I have confidence that the Committee will be able to work with the Justice Minister and the Justice Department to make sure that we can look at this. In principle, I support the use of live links, which is covered in Part 3. Again, the devil will be in the detail. Part 4 is on the administration of justice. There is a clause on legal aid and the role of the taxing master, who is an independent judicial office holder. The Bar of Northern Ireland has an issue with that. I find it extremely complicated, if I am being honest; it is something that I will have to sit down and look at. That is clause 28. Again, we can look at that.

Yes, of course.

I thank the Minister for that. You are probably right — of course you are — but, if the Northern Ireland Bar has a concern, it is only right and proper that we look at it in detail; and that is what I am talking about. The no bill piece in the Bill makes absolute sense, and we have no issue with that. There has been a lot of discourse about what will be added to the Bill at a later stage. I have my concerns, as will we all. The Chair of the Committee outlined them. It is important that we do, and nobody should be afraid of people being critical of something. I have looked at the things that will be added to the Bill, and they are all really important, but the last one struck me: provisions to tackle those who participate in or direct serious organised crime. The reality of that — we do not have the wording — goes all the way back to Part 2, because organised crime uses children. If we do not have the details of that clause, how can we consider Part 2, which is all about children?

1,040 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