Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5448430

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for her engagement and the clarification. She is right: there will be cases where people are not convicted or proven guilty. There are, therefore, times when it is right for the police to record incidents, but it should also be the case that we are careful about how that information is disclosed, because it may be the case that no crime is committed and the person is completely innocent but, because there is a recording somewhere, it could be disclosed. That could cause severe detriment to someone who has not committed a crime. That is an area that we will be able to look at and see where we go.

Another issue that strikes me as interesting is the assault on public workers. It is a novel and good idea, but I worry, because it is put in the Bill as "assaults on public workers", which basically includes everyone who performs a public duty, including retail workers and everyone who produces something for the public. It is right that people get protection, but we have already had aggravators and actual crimes around assaults on people who work in blue-light services, such as police officers and firefighters.

Of course, I had the pleasure of bringing in a law to bring ambulance workers up to that level; that was in 2016, if my memory serves me right. I brought an amendment to the Justice Bill — I think that it was during David Ford's time as Minister — to bring ambulance workers up to the same level as firefighters and police officers when it comes to aggravated assault.

I worry that those blue-light service workers, who not only perform a duty and a service to the public but are lifesavers, will now be at the same level as every public worker. Whilst every public worker needs to be protected in law, there is a difference when that public service can save a life. There is logic in elevating offences for assaults on blue-light service workers, because, if you knock that worker out of commission and out of operation, that could be detrimental to the next victim. If a firefighter, police officer or ambulance worker ends up in A&E and is out of service and unable to work, it may, for example, be the case that that police officer should have been at the scene of a crime when another victim was created. There is potential to ensure that those blue-light service workers are elevated above all other public workers because of the impact of an assault on those workers. Those three job titles are included in the Bill, but we could roll that out further. I toyed with the idea of bringing a private Member's Bill to deal with assaults on A&E staff, because that is the same logic. This could get wider, and we should maybe explore that and look at including public service workers where there is a real impact on life. We would be justified in elevating such jobs when it comes to assaults on public workers. I am sure that that will not be easy. Social workers have the same issue, because they go into people's homes and could be assaulted.

I thank the Minister for reminding me about probation officers. There will be many more, but it is worth looking at that and seeing whether there can be an elevation. I understand that the Minister is repealing the blue-light assault offences; she can correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, she will be repealing one of the laws that I brought in. However, we are not precious about that sort of thing. We want to see proper law, and we want to see the law working to protect the people who protect us. I have a lot of family members who work in retail, some of whom have been assaulted in the shop, but I think that they understand that they are not performing a life-changing service. They are selling food and good stuff, but they are not performing such a service. Therefore, whilst it is right to protect retail staff and service workers, we have to look at the elevation of people who save us, care for us, try to save our lives and keep us from harm. There is a lot of exploration work to be done there. Part 7 is about road traffic offences, and I am intrigued with that Part because a number of MLAs have come to me about potential amendments related to road traffic issues. I wonder whether Part 7 opens up scope for such work. I will be working with the Bill Office, probably in the next couple of weeks, to explore ways in which we can maybe bring something in that provides a service to people who have suffered. Of course, Part 7 is partly to do with Enda Dolan, who was aged 18 when he was struck by a van and died. It is a really sensitive issue, and it is really important that we deal with it. There are other victims out there with similar, but not identical, stories to tell, and they could maybe be covered in Part 7. There could be exploration of what can be done in that regard. As I said, I am intrigued by the Bill. I look forward to scrutinising it with my colleagues on the Justice Committee. The Committee has assembled a very good team. We are very capable of scrutinising the Bill, of assisting the Minister and the Department with it and of advising them where clauses might be bettered or where new clauses might be added. I look forward to scrutinising the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill in the weeks ahead.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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