Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

1 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4563118

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will begin by noting the long title of the Bill. We are told that it is a Bill to:

"amend the law about the release of children on bail and about their detention; to permit the use of live links for the exercise of certain police functions; to make other provision in connection with the administration of justice; and for connected purposes."

Given those parameters, I press the Minister to reassure the House by confirming that she has no plans to attempt to raise the criminal age of responsibility either by way of amendment or by secondary legislation. I note that Mr O'Toole had concerns in that regard, coming from a different angle. I am happy for the Minister to take the opportunity through an intervention now or in her summing up to confirm her intentions. I caution Members against any attempt to amend the Bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility. I remind the Chamber of the horrendous murder of two-year-old James Bulger by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will move on. Those two 10-year-olds displayed a degree of premeditated viciousness that is hard to credit.

Absolutely.

I welcome the Minister's intervention. I will move on to clause 1. I trust that the Committee will give the provisions on the retention of biometric data particularly close scrutiny. Members will note that clause 1 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989. That complex legislation deals with DNA and fingerprint evidence and how long it can be retained. I trust that the Committee will satisfy itself beyond doubt that no steps are being taken that would impede future prosecutions arising from the hundreds of unsolved murders resulting from the terrorist campaign. All the contributions to date have focused on the rights of people; I want to introduce to the debate the rights of victims. We know that there is slim hope of prosecutions, but we also know that developments in DNA have produced breakthroughs decades later, as in the case of the murder of John Proctor, an RUC reservist who was gunned down as he visited his wife and newborn at Magherafelt hospital in 1981. Thirty years later, IRA man Seamus Kearney was convicted of that heinous murder because his DNA was discovered on a cigarette butt at the scene. Shamefully, because of the immoral Belfast Agreement on which this House is built, he served only two years of the life sentence that he should have faced for murdering a father who had just visited his newborn. Having their day in court and the guilty verdict, even after so many years, meant a lot to the family, however. Nothing should be done with the Bill that snuffs out hope for such victims, and it should not deliver aid to terrorists like Seamus Kearney, who was convicted in the Proctor case. Again, perhaps the Minister would like to give me her assurance on that point, either now or at the end when she is summing up. Clause 22 also raises interesting issues. While I appreciate that there have been serious problems and delays in the Policing Board reaching tenable decisions on ill-health retirement and injury on duty awards, the delegating of those functions to board officials, as proposed in clause 22 does not strike me as being any guarantee of a better outcome, as it is often those very officials who make the dubious recommendations. Giving officials the power to do largely as they please is not a solution. I want to flag my early opposition to clause 23. The clause, in repealing section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, removes the Audit Office's oversight role when it comes to the PSNI. That would be fine if we were to assume that the Policing Board is up to the job. It is important to remember, however, that the Audit Office is not just about finances. Recently, we had an example of that in my constituency when the Audit Office conducted an extraordinary audit of Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council that was primarily about performance. The Audit Office can therefore perform a useful role. With the Policing Board boasting a terrorist such as Mr Kelly in its current membership, it requires all the oversight that is available to it. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the House why she seeks to remove the confidence-building measure —.

Certainly. I will bear that in mind moving forward, Mr Deputy Speaker. Once again, I encourage the Minister to explain to the House why she seeks to remove the confidence-building measure of the Audit Office having an oversight role.

Moving to clause 25, perhaps the Minister will explain —.

Yes, go on ahead.

The Bill tells me differently, from my reading of it. I know that I have not been here for long, but that is certainly not the way that I read it. Moving on to clause 25, perhaps the Minister will explain why it is thought necessary to amend section 7 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Finally, clause 28 removes the long-standing supervisory and review role for taxing masters, whereby the quantum of legal aid payments can be independently reviewed upon an order for taxation by the court. Clause 28 makes the Department the judge of its own cause. Is that fair, Minister?

896 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