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 5584127

Text

I thank the Member for his contribution, as I thank the Minister and Gerry Carroll for their interventions. This is a really serious topic, so we need to take it very seriously, but, in the first instance, it is about our trying to be human rights-compliant. That is our base — it is what we are trying to do; it is the motive behind the Bill, and it is really important. Whilst the Coronavirus Act is in the Bill, and we could and should talk about it in relation to live links, the issue with the Coronavirus Act is that what it did to our people was awful. The stigma and harm caused by the use of the regulations will be with us for decades. That includes our children who will not and cannot now go to school — all of that.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Emma Sheerin raised an important point about data collection and innocence. The question of innocence should come into it. That is why this structure must have safeguards whereby you can appeal in order to have such data removed. I say to the Member that we now live in an age where, if you want to travel to other countries, you must go to the airport and put the palm of your hand on an electronic pad in order to align that with the photograph on your passport.
I do not like that, nor am I comfortable with it, but that is the state of play. I will give way to the Member.
There are two issues. The first is choice. Not travelling is not really a choice for someone. That is like saying that it is your choice whether or not you want to work or that it is your choice whether or not you want to go to a pub or restaurant. That is why I am totally opposed to data being used in that way. The other point is about human rights. If someone commits a crime, we have to allow for a diminishing of their rights, such as the right to freedom if they get a custodial sentence and are incarcerated. There are qualifying aspects to all human rights, and this is just one part. This is a really in-depth, good debate on these serious matters. It is right for us to have this debate, because we are trying to be human rights-compliant, and that is the most important thing.
Yes.
We have to strike a balance in giving the police the powers to solve crime and bring criminals and perpetrators to justice. That is the balance that we have to strike. That is what we are debating and arguing about on Part 1. Somewhere along the line, we must fall down on what the structures should be. That is why it is important that the Department has the structure in place and that it is contained in the Bill. The Department has changed it in many ways, but that is where it has fallen down and what it has agreed.
Yes.

513 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: 0.06 (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 (0.89).
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	0.04	No
Controversy escalation	0.05	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.89	Yes
Overall judgement	0.06	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	0.83
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers	0.13
Another identity-related subject	0.02
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.01
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:43 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