Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Stephen Dunne on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Stephen Dunne

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 4563116

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak at Second Stage of the Justice Bill as a new member of the Justice Committee. We look forward to the work ahead of us on the Bill. Given the scale of the challenges facing the Police Service, courts, victims and witnesses of crime, it is imperative that every effort is made to improve and strengthen the operation and effectiveness of our justice system. That is something that we can all unite around in the House today. We are cognisant of the well-known pressures facing the departmental budget. That has been mentioned by some Members already this afternoon. It is of some concern that the Minister intends to bring forward the reforms in this format, as has been widely covered, with several major and significant policy areas coming forward by way of six additional amendments. However, it is an opportunity for us all to play our part, and there must be full scrutiny at every stage, including the full exploration of any unintended consequences. The interest shown today around the House is a positive sign for engagement and scrutiny of the Bill both from Committee members and non-Committee Members, who have shown quite a bit of interest. That is a positive sign for everybody, including the Minister. The explanatory and financial memorandum suggests that the Bill's provisions will primarily be delivered within existing resources. That is an example of where there needs to be a lot more detail given and more exploration done in the weeks and months ahead. We all have a part to play in that and look forward to it and to listening to the various stakeholders, which has been emphasised by the Chair and the Deputy Chair, through engagement with the officials and taking evidence in the right time and in the right way. Everybody — the different cohorts — will be impacted differently, and it is important that we assess the framework and make sure that it is fair and workable. I turn to Part 1 of the Bill, in particular the retention of biometric data. As a party, we recognise the need to strike a fair balance between upholding the rights, freedoms and liberties of those who come into contact with the police as regards the retention of their DNA and data and, importantly, ensuring that the PSNI, legal authorities and agencies have the wherewithal, capacity and tools to keep the flame of truth and justice alive for victims of crime. Biometric data, as has been mentioned, is a matter that is ever-evolving as technology advances, and it is important that legislation is agile enough to reflect those changes. As technology advances so quickly, it is important to have that flexibility built in to reflect the advances that there have been even since the work started. We do not want to ever get into a situation where unidentified biometric data is deleted only for it to be later proven that emerging technology would, in fact, have been capable of connecting that data and persons to serious crimes against persons and property. That would be an abdication of the state's obligations to innocent victims. We are not satisfied either that data pertaining to those who have been arrested but are innocent and later acquitted of wrongdoing should be retained in perpetuity. We agree that material obtained by consent should be retained only until it is no longer needed and will not be added to a DNA or fingerprint database. It is undoubtedly a complex area, and we will need to see more detail on the Bill come forward in the weeks and months ahead at Committee Stage and the stages that will follow that. Clause 1 outlines distinct arrangements governing the retention of data that is held in connection with different persons' offences and the various lengths and types of sentence. We need to hear more on how confident the Minister is that the PSNI will be able to embed the proposed changes into the current software system, calculating biometric retention periods under different legislative frameworks. The proposed 75/50/25-year model will require much more scrutiny. That work started with officials last week, and it was helpful for all the Committee members who were present, particularly as that model is not in operation in any other part of the UK. That will be interesting, and there is a lot more work to be done on it. The role and remit of the commissioner will be another important consideration, building on the experience of Scotland in 2021 when their commissioner's work began. There are lessons to be learned from our neighbours in Scotland, and I am sure that that work will continue. Part 4 covers the administration of justice. It is positive that clause 25 will cut off any route to serious charges related to the death of a child or vulnerable adult being dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, without lesser charges of allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die having been determined. It is important to ensure that opportunities for prosecution are not lost if new evidence, in fact, comes to light in trial proceedings flowing from the new section 5 domestic offence. Overall, there is a lot more information to come. We all look forward to more detail coming to the Committee in the weeks and months ahead. I concur with my colleague Joanne Bunting, the Committee Chair, who spelt out clearly our party's position on these wide-ranging matters and the importance of focusing on the right way and best way and not just the way that is most convenient for the Minister or any other Member.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:23 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