Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 2 June 2026.

MLA: Mr Paul Frew
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 2 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5584062

Text

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I also thank her for clarifying the changes that have been made at this point of which the Committee did not have sight. I accept her explanation about their tidying-up nature. When I read them last week, I was worried that they changed policy in some way, so I am glad that they do not. There is absolutely no doubt that Part 1 is massive. First of all, it is really important to comply with human rights, which we should do as a state, when it comes to our personal data. However, that must be balanced with the duty that we place on our police force to protect us and keep society safe by preventing crime and catching the criminals who commit it. That is really important, so it is right that the Minister looks for a structure in which to do that. The Minister has tackled it by using what is labelled as the "70/50/25-year model". That is complex. Reading the clauses that deal with it, you see a complicated picture of a sliding scale of offences, ages and different scenarios — they are not all offences — that comes into play. At the start, I had to chart out on a piece of paper everything that the Bill does in each clause. Seventy-five years seems like an awfully long time — a lifetime — to hold somebody's personal data, but that is for people who have been convicted of a qualifying offence, which is the most serious offence in our land. It is therefore appropriate, because, from time to time, we have historical cases that need to be investigated and could link certain crimes with other crimes. That will bring truth, if not justice, to victims. In this age of biometrics and the digital world, it is important that we give the PSNI the tools that will help us defeat crime.
The Member makes a valid point. I mentioned victims because it is important that the police use modern technology to solve crime and bring justice to victims, to society and to the culprits.
Proposed new article 63K states:
"where ... P is convicted of a recordable offence ... and ... is given a custodial sentence",
their material will be held for 50 years. There are differences when it comes to age. I found it difficult to get my head around why age would be a factor. If we are talking about the retention of the data of someone under the age of 18, surely there is an argument for retaining that data for a longer, not shorter, period, because, given their age, they are going to live longer than most of us. The Minister, however, settled on the structure that she has suggested in the Bill. Here is the thing, however: once a structure is in place, it is very hard to change it completely or to come up with a better model.
Yes.

494 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: 0.03 (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 (0.92).
No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.04	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.03	No
Controversy escalation	0.03	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.92	Yes
Overall judgement	0.03	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	1.00
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.45
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.35
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.18
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.01
Another identity-related subject	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:42 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