Debate contribution: Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on 2 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Doug Beattie MC

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

2 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5356385

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Not wanting to fall into the zone in which everything has been said but not everyone has said it, I fully support what the Chair of the Justice Committee has laid out. I support the LCM, but I want to add value to it. I have been thinking about the Bill over the past number of days, and I want to raise an area in which there could be a gap. Clause 94(2) rightly aims to prevent registered sex offenders from getting a driving licence in a new name, but we must consider the dangerous window before registration. There are often lengthy periods between arrest, charge and trial. We know that there are major delays, sometimes lasting years, in sexual offence cases coming before the courts, and we know that the vast majority of sex offenders enter a late guilty plea. What is there to stop an individual who is arrested or charged with a sexual offence but not yet convicted from legally changing their name and obtaining a new driving licence during the delay? The answer is, potentially, very little. They could exploit that gap by confusing and intimidating a victim who knows them by another name. They could begin to construct a new identity in anticipation of a potential conviction, getting ahead of future restrictions. They could undermine the administration of justice by creating confusion around their identity in court and before a jury. Perversely, this legislation could incentivise a late guilty plea. That is not a hypothetical scenario: the well-documented backlog in our courts makes that delay a real operational vulnerability that manipulative defendants could use. Therefore, although I support clause 94(2), I genuinely urge the Minister to consider whether enabling powers or amendments are needed to allow the implementation of interim measures. For example, could a condition of bail for those charged with sexual offences include a prohibition on them legally changing their names? Could a flagging system be established at DVLA and HM Passport Office that operates from the moment at which someone is charged, not just when they are convicted? Closing the door after conviction is essential, but to protect victims and the integrity of the judicial process during that vulnerable period of time, we must also lock the door from the moment that a serious allegation is formally made. I do not want to go through the rest of the LCM: it is pretty sound and other people have looked at it. We can all look at things hypothetically and say, "Maybe this will happen or maybe that could happen". However, the possibility that I have outlined is a real one. There are people out there who are manipulative and can use the gap. If you are charged with a sexual offence and you know that a conviction could be two or three years down the road, you might decide to put in a not guilty plea even though you know you are guilty. In that interim period, you could set up a new life for yourself, including a new driving licence. We really have a bit of a gap that I think that we need to address. I hope that the Minister can look at that for us and see whether there is any way of dealing with it.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:18 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