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 5584079

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Minister has raised a very important point. The appeals structure should not be just one way but both ways. If someone has their data retained, and they or their family feel that they should not have it retained, there should be procedures in place whereby the PSNI can scrutinise that decision and process it. As the Minister rightly said, the PSNI retains and controls that data, but the individual involved will be able to appeal to the independent commissioner. Proposed new article 63K also states that, where P is convicted of a recordable offence but is not given a custodial sentence, their material will be held for 25 years. Proposed new article 63M refers to P's being aged under 18 at the time of the offence, their not being given a custodial sentence of five years or more, their having completed the combined restorative justice process and the offence not being recordable. We can therefore see how the structure cascades and how the years drop. Proposed new article 63M(5) states:

"If P is given a custodial sentence of less than 5 years"

and the offence is their first offence, and if P is under 18, their:

"material may be retained until the end of the period consisting of the term of the sentence plus 5 years".

That is very complicated, but I understand the logic. That article also states that P's material will be held for five years if P is under 18 and is convicted of a recordable offence that is their first offence. I can understand why we are doing that for first offences. People, especially young people, sometimes make mistakes, and they have to pay for those mistakes. Justice must be seen to be done. Victims need justice to be served, but there is that exemption for first offences. I like that idea. Proposed new article 63G states:

"where P ... is arrested for a qualifying offence ... or ... is charged with any qualifying offence but is not convicted",

their material will be retained for three years. Sometimes, those lower years are more controversial. If P is charged with a recordable offence, their material will be held for 12 months. Proposed new article 63Q states:

"where ... P is given a penalty notice under section 60 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011",

their material will be held for two years. When I first read that, I thought, "A penalty notice? Really? We are getting DNA collected for penalty notices?". As the Minister has pointed out, however, it is not a penalty notice such as that for a driving offence. It is not that type of penalty notice. Rather, it falls under section 60 of the Justice Act, which, as the Minister recited, includes indecent behaviour, shoplifting, theft and criminal damage. I think that being drunk in a public place is in there as well, although the Minister did not include that in her list. The Minister also said that section 60 includes disorderly behaviour, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and behaviour where it is alleged that the accused resisted, obstructed or impeded a constable. If P is guilty of a penalty notice under section 60 of the Justice Act 2011, those are quite serious offences, so the DNA and biometric materials can be retained for two years. As the Minister outlined, there are times when the Chief Constable can apply to have the biometric materials kept for longer.

Yes, I will.

Yes, I do. I thank the Member for his intervention. I do have concerns about that, but if crime has been committed, no matter how light-touch it may seem to some Members, I do think that the sliding scale appreciates and acknowledges that. I think that it is right that the Chief Constable, who is the holder of the data and who is tasked with investigating and solving crime, has the tools and the flexibility to apply to have the retention of DNA material extended. There will need to be good cause for the Chief Constable to apply for retention of that data beyond the scope of this structure. If there is good cause and that is coming from the Chief Constable, it is right and proper that it will be attested to and assessed, with a decision then taken on that. Of course, there is a court process involved too. The Justice Minister has produced a structure. You could come up with all sorts of structures, and I will come to that in a minute. The Minister settled on the structure that she has agreed, and her Department is comfortable with that structure. For the Assembly to mess about with that too much at this point could put Part 1 of the Bill in jeopardy and could tie the hands of the PSNI and all the other criminal justice organisations in investigating crime, solving crime and putting culprits behind bars. We need to make sure that they have all the information that they require on anyone who has breached the law. Where I do have an issue is where someone has not been convicted of a crime, and I will explain why. Where someone has not been convicted of a crime, they are innocent, but there are parts of the structure that allow for retention of their DNA. When you think about that and about how a court case works, you see that, sometimes, people can get off on technicalities or because there has been a flawed investigative process. Sometimes, people can get off because they have not been asked the right questions at the right time in custody. Therefore, I believe that it is appropriate that DNA be retained for a time, even in such cases. It builds up a knowledge and intelligence base for the PSNI to investigate crime further and in other parts of the country where you might have a single culprit. I think that the Minister's structure is a sound one. We could all pick holes in it, and we could all come up with our own ideas on biometric retention. However, when the Minister and the Department have decided on a structure, we have to assess it and scrutinise it. When we come down one way or the other, we have to say, "this that is the way it is going to be."

I do have concerns around all of that. We took evidence on that. However, it is for the Minister to answer on her structure and her operation of her structure and the Bill that she has produced. This is not perfect. There are areas of concern, but the challenge — I will come to Sinn Féin's amendments soon — is how to produce something that is similar or better than that which the Department has produced and that, in communication with the PSNI, strikes the balance between human rights compliance and the detection, investigation and solving of crime? There is a balance there. It will not be a perfect balance. We will not get it right. The Minister and Department will not get it right. However, we have a framework in place that we have to go with. There is no other show in town. It is important that these things are reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that they afford people justice and protection and are human rights-compliant, which is the whole point of the Bill.

1,242 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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