Debate contribution: Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .

MLA
Mr Doug Beattie MC
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
8 December 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5284961

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion from the SDLP. We see three elements in it. The first is that it outlines the trend of taking pictures at the scene of an accident instead of assisting. We now have some elements of society who are so wedded to their phones and social media, scrambling for likes and shares and making media input, that they are too busy creating a story to help. They have lost all sense of decency, morality and compassion. We saw that back in October of this year, as has just been referred to. In a road traffic accident, a 67-year-old pedestrian was struck by a lorry and, sadly, passed away at the scene. Some people stopped to help, but others just stood and took pictures. For reasons known only to them, they decided that they would share those distressing images, which had a terrible effect on the family. John O'Brien, our lovely "Scottish John", or "Scotty John" as he was referred to by many, deserved better. His family deserved better. Sadly, the trend of taking pictures instead of helping goes well beyond traffic accidents. We see it with assaults on the person, abuse of staff and accidents in the workplace. One of my own staff saw it in the attempted abduction of a female. It has to stop. It is a societal issue that we are going to have to deal with. Secondly, the motion calls for support for the campaign known as Caoimhe's law:

"which would make it a criminal offence to record or share images and videos of victims at the scene of a fatal or critical traffic collision without lawful authority or family consent".

I absolutely support that, but I would go further and count in all those other instances that I mentioned. Caoimhe's family learned of her death through social media. How utterly reprehensible, disgusting and disgraceful that that could ever happen. It was done by design by those individuals. The individuals responsible have lost touch with any form of morality. They caused unimaginable hurt to Caoimhe's family and friends. Lastly, the motion calls for the Justice Minister to bring forward legislation:

"by the end of the mandate"

to make the taking of those ghoulish images illegal. I support that 100%, but, on a practical level, I am not sure that we can get that done before the end of the mandate. I hope that we can and that the Minister can find a way. My colleague on the Justice Committee Paul Frew outlined a way of doing that, and I would support that. However, if it cannot be achieved by the end of the mandate, we need to use what we have available to us to create a deterrent to prevent people from taking pictures. The Communications Act 2003 was used by the police to arrest a 47-year-old woman under the misuse of the public communications network to send grossly offensive and indecent material in regard to the death of John O'Brien in Newry. It did not stop the images, but it can act as a deterrent. We need more of that, but, as was mentioned in a previous debate, the police need the resources to do that, and the courts need to ensure that a deterrent goes with it. As I bring my remarks to an end, my thoughts are with the families of "Scotty John" and Caoimhe and with all the families who have suffered in this way. It is truly appalling. While the criminal justice system is not the answer to all the issues — I fully accept that — where we have nothing else, we have to use it. We have to create that deterrent.

We have to make people aware that, if they are at the scene of an accident or if they witness something else, such as an assault, and their first action is to pick up the phone not to dial 999 but to take a video, they are wrong, and the justice system will come down on them.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.05 (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 (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.05No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.09No
Controversy escalation0.08No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.95
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.05
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.72
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.08
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.06
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.05
Another identity-related subject0.04

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:11 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