Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 1 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563192
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As has been said, our job is to sift through legislation, scrutinise it and ask questions. There are a lot of outstanding questions on the Bill that I will come to in a moment, and I hope to have some clarity from the Minister on them. I recognise that large parts of the Bill relate to children and young people. Following issues that NICCY raised in correspondence to all MLAs, it appears that the Bill, whilst, no doubt, complex, does not seem to be fully cognisant of a children's rights framework. It is also worth mentioning that the legislation may impact on other groups, including asylum seekers and migrants — people who are often othered and marginalised in our society. The aspects of the Bill that deal with biometric data require further focus and scrutiny. To be honest, I was completely astounded to find out that the state can hold data indefinitely for people who have been convicted of crime. There are serious questions to ask about that practice and how it can be allowed to continue. Doing away with the indefinite holding of data is obviously welcome, but I do not honestly know whether the 75/50/25-year model is either reasonable or required. I remain to be convinced of that. NICCY also stated that it is unsure why the model should be part of the Bill. I ask the Minister this: where is the right to privacy and a personal life, especially for children and young people? I move now to the retention of data for 25 years for two or more juvenile non-serious convictions that do not involve a custodial sentence of more than five years. Someone under 18 who has a conviction for a non-serious offence involving a custodial sentence of more than five years will attract a 50-year retention period. At first look, that flies in the face of rehabilitation and a second chance, which is crucial for young people, and it seems excessive. You can serve your time, but the state will still have your data and info. It is blanket treatment, it is indiscriminate and it allows the state to hold information against people whom it deems to be undesirable. Who would seriously suggest that it would not be used for political purposes? I would have such concerns generally, at any time, but they have been amplified by the recent PSNI data leak. There is also no mechanism for people to contest the retention of their data. Another omission that Members mentioned is the criminal age of responsibility. It is not dealt with. It should be raised to 16. It is a missed opportunity. The Minister may have explained her rationale for that earlier, and I might have missed it; I am not sure. The Bill does not deal with the social or economic factors relating to crime. It should include looking at social and financial measures to support those dealing with the issues that lead people to criminal activity.
Yes.
I thank the Minister for that. Obviously, it is a wider point. You need to look at the issues relating to crime if you want to stop it. We are told that the Executive collaborate on many issues and, I believe, on this Bill as well. The point stands, but I take her point. I move now to live links. I have a concern about clause 23 removing the requirement for the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit the Policing Board's performance plan. Again, I might have missed it earlier, but I am not sure why that is in the Bill or what the political rationale for it is. The changes to legal aid require further exploration. The Minister's argument for the Department of Justice having more control over determining payments for legal aid work is that it will streamline the process and the work, but it will also limit independent oversight.
Yes.
649 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.89 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.