Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

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 4562987

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As I do with all legislation in this place nowadays, I give the Bill a cautious welcome. We are legislators, and we are here to do a job. That job, however, should be measured not by the amount of legislation that we scrutinise but by the quality. We all know where the biometrics, the DNA and the data retention elements of the Bill come from. They have come about after a number of court cases and breaches of European rights — the Marper and Gaughran cases — and I get that. Therefore, the Department must act and do something in that regard. Where I come from with regard to the retention of DNA and biometrics is the balance between human rights and the principles of proportionality, necessity and the presumption of innocence. There should be strict limits on data retention. I ask this question, even at this stage: why have the Minister and the Department adopted those specific periods? Why have those been chosen? I get that there is a balance and that, at this stage, there will not be a right or a wrong answer. Nevertheless, it would be good to tease that out a wee bit more at Second Reading, which is an important stage of any legislation. I am concerned about some of the time periods. I am not saying that they are right or wrong. I am just asking this question: what is the Minister's mindset around this stuff? In clause 1, new article 63G states:

"(1) This Article applies where P— (a) is arrested for a qualifying offence other than an excepted offence but is not charged with that offence, or (b) is charged with any qualifying offence but is not convicted of that offence ... (3) If P is charged with a qualifying offence but is not convicted of that offence, P’s material may be retained until the end of the period of 3 years".

Is that the balance that the Minister is trying to strike? Is that the right balance? The new article continues:

"4) If— (a) P is arrested for a qualifying offence other than an excepted offence but is not charged with that offence ... P’s material may be retained until the end of the period of 3 years".

I also note new article 63H:

"(2) The Chief Constable may apply to a district judge ... for an order which, in relation to particular material, extends the 3 year period set out in Article 63G(3) or (4) by a further period of 2 years".

Why just two years? Those are valid and appropriate questions. Then, of course, scattered throughout the Bill are periods of 75 years and 50 years. I have no doubt that, somewhere in the Bill, there will be a period of 25 years too: I just have not found it yet. That brings me to my point that the House has to reassure itself that the balance in the Bill is right. We all know why we have to deal with biometrics and DNA and data retention: article 8 contravention. We cannot have it indefinitely; I think that we all understand and acknowledge that at this stage. There are rights and freedoms that the House and the Department must take into account. I look forward to knowing the Minister's mindset and that of the Department around the periods that they have adopted in the Bill and how that could progress through the Committee, Consideration and Further Consideration Stages. One of the issues that concerns me is fixed penalty notices. New article 63Q applies where a person:

"is given a penalty notice under section 60 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in respect of a recordable offence, and (b) no proceedings are brought against P for the offence. (2) P’s material may be retained until the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the date on which P was given the penalty notice."

Penalty notices are serious enough, but retention of DNA for two years? Where is the balance? Is it being struck appropriately and correctly? I simply pose that question to the House at Second Reading.

What really perplexes me, however, is that, when I first saw the Bill and saw that there was a Part on the use of live links, I thought, "Happy days. This is now the Department moving away from a reliance on coronavirus legislation". When I read Part 3, however, I learned that it is nothing of the sort. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, when we have had legislation in place for up to four years, with a practice that has been operating quite successfully, you would not slot that legislation into the Bill first off. Why would you not have it in the Bill as introduced? It seems to me to be a striking omission. Although I have nothing against the use of live links for interview purposes, there are concerns about the context and about getting people's consent to take part in live links. There is the fact that people are not in a court. Do they understand exactly the process in which they are involved? Are they tutored on this stuff? Are they supported to use live links? Those are grey areas that I have concerns about at this point, especially when we are talking about children and vulnerable adults. Are they aware of the process that they are involved in when speaking via a live link? Courts cannot —.

Yes, I will.

The Minister knows full well my support for all of that, especially for the legislation that we passed in the previous mandate on domestic violence and stalking. The Minister knows my form on this. I am simply relaying concerns that I have about live links being used for interviews. I am not saying that their use is wrong. Rather, I am saying that I would like to see a wee bit more detail on how those people will be served when they use a live link for interview purposes. My point, however, still stands, Minister, and it is this: why on earth have you not included in the Bill the live links provision that you enjoyed under the Coronavirus Act? I just do not understand why it is not in the Bill as introduced. I will give way to the Minister.

I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I just do not get that the provision is under development. You know what it is designed to do and have been operating it for the past three years, yet you cannot even put it in a blue Bill that you introduced when you would, I suspect, have universal support for continuing with the practice. Minister, I do not really understand your reasoning about the difference between regulations and a Bill. Both are examples of legislation. There is nothing impossible about legislation, and I just do not understand — I will accept clarification if the Minister wants to give it — why the provision was not included in the Bill as introduced.

1,181 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