Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on 2 June 2026.

MLA

Ms Emma Sheerin

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

2 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5584191

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Hopefully, I will be finished. Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. I commend the work of the Minister, the Department and the Committee, including my party colleagues who were on the Committee before me. I thank Deirdre Hargey, who was in the Chamber earlier. She served as the Deputy Chair before me and did a brilliant job. She has been a great support to me since I came to the Committee in explaining the context of a lot of the issues. I also thank the Bill Office and everybody there: they have been helpful with getting our amendments before the House. We are discussing the group 1 amendments, which relate to biometric data retention and police photographs. Sinn Féin has tabled a number of amendments — amendment Nos 5, 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 34 and 35 — which I will speak to in the first instance. It is important to set out the context of those amendments. A new legislative framework to handle biometric data retention is necessary because of two legal challenges that resulted in judgements by the European Court of Human Rights. The court found that our existing data retention framework infringed on people's rights. The indefinite retention periods and the absence of a meaningful review process were identified as key problems, and that is what has led to it. I welcome the fact that the Minister has sought to remedy those human rights infringements under the new framework. Human rights were at the forefront of our minds as we sought to amend the Bill. I thank our comrades in the policy team and those in the human rights fraternity who gave us assistance in identifying gaps and ways that we could improve things. We need to strike the correct balance. On one hand, we want to ensure that our criminal justice system has access to modern tools that can help to keep people safe and bring offenders to justice, but we also must recognise that biometric data is highly personal. It belongs to people, not the state. Its collection, use and retention must be subject to appropriate safeguards. We need to have trust from the public in a biometric framework that not only works but has proper checks and balances to prevent overreach. I welcome the proposals for a new biometrics commissioner, but I question, as we have done throughout the Committee Stage, whether that commissioner has the necessary independence and powers to adjudicate on disputes about police decisions to retain data. We also carefully examined how biometric retention frameworks were developed and rolled out in other jurisdictions, and we learned some valuable lessons from that. When it comes to people who have been arrested or charged but not convicted, a defendant's human rights have to be balanced with society's right to be safe and free from crime. That is a complicated but important task. It was of concern to us when, during the Committee's scrutiny, issues were raised by the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission and the Policing Board's human rights adviser about the proportionality of some elements of the Bill and when they questioned whether some of those elements were compatible with article 8 of the ECHR. We identified issues around retention periods for individuals who had been acquitted or where an allegation is not prosecuted, as well as proportionality issues regarding the proposed frameworks for under-18s. I can accept that there are cases where an individual has been assessed as posing a threat or further risk of reoffending, but that is a hypothetical position: the starting point must be the presumption of innocence. We require, in human rights law, more than a speculative possibility that retained data might one day prove useful. Interferences with privacy must be necessary and proportionate, and the state must provide a compelling justification for retaining information about people who, in the eyes of the law, are innocent. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasised that principle, including in the Marper judgement, which the Bill seeks to remedy. In that case, the Court was particularly concerned about the retention of biometric material belonging to people who had not been convicted of any offence. Amendment No 5, therefore, would remedy that by restricting the right to retain an individual's data when someone is arrested or charged with a qualifying offence but has been acquitted or has not been prosecuted. My colleague Ciara Ferguson will touch more heavily on the retention framework for under-18s, but we are seriously concerned that the Bill goes beyond what is necessary. We know and the evidence tells us that, when young people and children are systemised, they are more likely to remain in the system. We know about the problems that we have, and we know about the societal influences that lead to crime and the problems we have in the North.

832 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