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 5584155

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I feel like I am an intermediary between Sinn Féin and the Minister. I will make progress and talk to Sinn Féin's amendments. It is for Sinn Féin to try to sell its amendments to the House, and I will listen attentively when its Members speak to those amendments. It is really hard to look at what the amendments would omit from the Bill and to try to work out the structure of the Bill alongside the structure of the biometrics framework and to then try to work out what Sinn Féin is actually trying to achieve. Sinn Féin will have time to talk about that, so I do not need to take an intervention on it. From what I see, if I have got this right, Sinn Féin is trying to say that, where P is over 18 and is convicted of a qualifying offence, or where P has completed the community-based restorative justice piece and the offence is a qualifying offence, P's material would still be retained for 75 years. As I see it, Sinn Féin's amendments would make a difference in cases where P is under 18 and convicted of a qualifying offence, or where P is convicted of a recordable offence and a non-qualifying offence — because there are differences in offences. They would mean that, in such cases, P's data would be retained for only three years, unless the Chief Constable applies for an extension for a further two years and a further two years after that. If I have read that correctly, it means that, if someone under 18 is convicted of a qualifying offence — we must remember that that includes some of the most serious offences on the statute book — their data will be able to be retained for only seven years at most. I may be wrong in that, so I will certainly listen attentively when they speak to the amendments. Where P is convicted of a recordable offence other than a qualifying offence, and if P is aged 18 or over and is given a custodial sentence, their data can be retained for 50 years. If I am right, we can therefore see the difference between the 75 years for a qualifying offence, the 50 years for a recordable offence and the 25 years where P is convicted of a recordable offence but not given a custodial sentence. I will listen intently to the contributions from Sinn Féin Members to establish whether it means anything other than that, but it seems to me that Sinn Féin has struck out everything at five years, three years and two years. Of course, one of its amendments also does away with the penalty notice. Why would we not retain DNA for someone who has been convicted of indecent behaviour such as shoplifting, criminal damage, being drunk in a public place, disorderly behaviour or behaviour that is likely to cause a breach of the peace, and where it is alleged that the accused resisted, obstructed or impeded a police officer? Why would we not retain that DNA, even if for only a small period of time? That probably makes a mockery of the police requiring people to come to the police station to have their biometric data taken. Another issue with Sinn Féin's amendments, although its Members can speak to them and we will make a judgement based on that, is the fact that they seem to have stripped away any control that the PSNI has other than actually holding the data. They would mean that the PSNI would not have any sort of control over appeals or assessments. Sinn Féin does not even want the PSNI about the place when it comes to assessing such things. The PSNI, which is there to keep us safe, to investigate and solve crime and to be the holder of that material, should have a part to play — it must have a part to play. I worry about how Sinn Féin's amendments would alter the structure that the Justice Minister has created. I understand Gerry Carroll's amendment and why he has tabled it, because it reflects exactly some of the views that I have.

I worry, however, about whether it should be in the Bill or in the PACE codes. I do not know the answer to that. Maybe the Minister does. She may give us some information on that in her winding-up speech.

I really understand the checks and balances that Gerry Carroll is trying to create. I would like a lot of that good stuff included somewhere, but my question is this: should the amendment be in the Bill or in the operational PACE codes? I will reserve judgement until we hear from the Minister or from anybody who can provide clarification on that. The Member will speak to his amendment, so maybe he can clarify that.

Yes.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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