Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 151.
“<BR /> <BR />Responsibility for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 falls to the Minister of Finance, who has advised that it is already implicit in the 1998 Order that a court must have regard to all circumstances when determining whether to issue an occupation order or an NMO. It is therefore already possible for animals to be referenced in such orders. However, it is the Minister of Finance's view that, on balance, making it an explicit requirement in the 1998 Order could serve to reinforce the legislation and therefore assist the courts in making the orders and victims when applying for such orders. While the Minister believes that further policy development and engagement with stakeholders would be beneficial, both he and I recognise the potential benefits of the amendment.”
“Those behaviours are wholly unacceptable, and it is right that they should be condemned without any qualification. I therefore understand the desire to frame those matters explicitly in the legislative framework. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 88 would make changes to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, with a view to enhancing protections for victims of domestic abuse by preventing anyone from perpetuating abuse by harming or threatening to harm a pet or animal. The amendment would require a court, when considering whether and how to make an occupation order or a non-molestation order (NMO), to have regard to the likelihood and likely effect of any such order or decision on the welfare of an animal cared for by the person whom the order is intended to protect or their child.”
“I recognise that that is a growing area of concern and have met, for example, the Links Group, which includes the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection and others. I am aware of the work that it is doing with the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) to raise awareness in both professions of the linkages between harm caused to animals — companion animals and, indeed, farm animals — and domestic and sexual violence and abuse. I very much recognise Members' concerns about the role that pets and animals more generally can play in patterns of domestic abuse and coercive control. There is no doubt that threats against animals, harm to animals or animals being used as a means of intimidation can form a part of domestic abuse.”
“However, if the Member indicates that he is agreeable, I am willing to work with him between now and Further Consideration Stage to ensure that the amendment is an appropriate fit within our existing legislative framework and that it meets its aims in addressing relevant behaviours. <BR /> <BR />The last amendments in this group are amendment Nos 88 and 89, which, again, have been tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston and Ms Diane Forsythe. I begin by acknowledging the intention behind the amendments: to introduce the corollary of Ruby's law in Northern Ireland, with a view to strengthening domestic abuse legislation by explicitly recognising harm or the threat of harm to companion animals as a form of coercive control.”
“I therefore very much support the intention behind the amendment to strengthen protections for those who suffer such sexual exploitation, many of whom are also victims of human trafficking. <BR /> <BR />I will always support measures that are designed to help reduce the terrible harms and abuse inflicted on some of the most vulnerable in our society by some of the most despicable in our society. While I support the intention of the amendment in principle, I have some concerns about the intended scope of the offences, in their proportionality and where they may encroach on telecommunications law, which, as Members will recognise, falls within the reserved space. As such, the consent of the Secretary of State would be required for us to legislate on that.”
“Pimps and traffickers create the profiles and collect the profits, while their victims are powerless and continue to be exploited and abused.”
“I ask why any religion would continue to have or to need more protection under blasphemy law than others. I am grateful to Ms Egan for tabling her amendment, and I am happy to support it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 78, another provision tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston, aims to tackle the advertisement of sexual services. As Members know, I am fully committed to protecting victims from all forms of abuse and exploitation. Sadly, such deplorable behaviour is mainly targeted at women and girls. Advertising people who are trafficked or sexually exploited as though they are merely a commodity to be used and abused is completely unacceptable. The terrible thing is that many people do not know that they are being traded and objectified in that way.”
“We remarked that, where there is freedom of and from religion, other rights are often better protected; yet, around the globe, many places continue to have and, indeed, to implement blasphemy laws that are often not just archaic but draconian. That is something that I have been committed to changing for most of my adult life and that we need to show leadership on in this corner of the globe. <BR /> <BR />I am fully committed to freedom of and from religion, so I am sympathetic to and support the removal from the law of those outdated and mainly unused offences. Northern Ireland is now the only jurisdiction in these islands that has not abolished the offence of blasphemy. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and religion without fear of prosecution, however remote that fear might be.”
“Again, that mirrors provision in the UK Crime and Policing Act 2026 to be enacted on repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as it applies there. While I remain of the view that the provision of new offences should be developed only on the basis of an identified gap, I am willing to support the amendment, as it will not impact negatively on those who simply beg or sleep rough. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 73. I very much welcome Ms Connie Egan's proposal to repeal the blasphemy offences. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are archaic and have no place in a modern society. When I was in Parliament, I was the parliamentary champion of Open Doors.”
“Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and section 2 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which was introduced by Lord Morrow, are available to prosecute those who are found to have forced persons to beg or who have arranged or facilitated the travel of others with a view to those persons being exploited in that way. No evidence and no concerns have been raised by the police, the wider organised crime task force (OCTF), the modern slavery human trafficking subgroup or the NGO engagement forum, with which we regularly engage, that organised begging is an issue in Northern Ireland. That said, the amendment provides for a new offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain.”
“That aligns with the approach being taken by the UK Government, who intend to commence the new trespass offence in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 in tandem with the commencement of vagrancy repeal. The same approach can apply here. <BR /> <BR />The second of the amendments, No 72, relates to organised begging, which the Justice Committee raised as a particular issue during its scrutiny of my proposals. It was concerned about the PSNI's ability to deal with organised begging in the event of repeal. I highlight the fact that the existing legislation in the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 does not address organised or coerced begging. The 1847 Act criminalises only those who beg, not those who coerce others to beg. Therefore, my proposed repeal does not create a gap in that provision. There is current law to address such behaviour.”
“The current section 4 offence is primarily used as a support charge in cases in which, for example, proof of burglary is not made out. It does not appear to have been used to arrest offenders; rather, it has been added to the principal charge in case it has not been made out in court. While I understand that the use of the offence in recent years has been declining year on year, I am willing to support the Members' amendment, provided, of course, that the vagrancy legislation is also repealed. I am concerned that, in the absence of repeal, such an offence would have unintended consequences and could be used simply to target those who sleep rough or beg.”
“A similar offence is provided for in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and it was that provision that led the PSNI to raise concerns at Committee that a similar offence might be needed in Northern Ireland, although those concerns were not raised with the Department during the review.”
“The response to seeing others in desperate straits should be one of compassion, not censure. It is Dickensian that people can be threatened with arrest simply for sleeping rough or asking for a cup of coffee or a sandwich in a town centre. My amendment will repeal those outdated and harsh laws, and I commend it to the House. <BR /> <BR />I now want to discuss two amendments that Paul Frew, Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston tabled, which are contingent on repeal of the vagrancy amendment. Their first amendment, amendment No 71, would provide for a new offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and would replace the provision in section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 of being found on premises for any unlawful purpose, which, in the past, has been used to target individuals who were sleeping rough.”
“<BR /> <BR />The vagrancy laws that I seek to repeal with the amendment criminalise poverty, destitution and desperation. Poverty is not a crime. Being destitute is not a crime. Being desperate is not a crime. In this day and age, we must have better methods to address those who are in poverty or destitution, coping with trauma, addiction or poor mental health, and find themselves with nowhere to go but the streets. The phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" is a reminder of the role of chance, luck, upbringing and opportunity in people's life outcomes. I know that Members would agree that they would not swap their lives for those who find themselves in such desperation, but none of us knows what lies ahead for ourselves or, indeed, for members of our families.”
“<BR /> <BR />While I received significant support for my proposals, I am fully aware of the concerns of the business sector. Two Belfast business improvement districts, representing a large number of businesses in the city centre, responded to the consultation that repeal would require replacement legislation. I subsequently met retail representatives, as did my officials separately, to address related concerns and explain the rationale better. Where people begging or rough sleeping conduct themselves in a manner that is disruptive or causes a breach of the peace, there are laws to deal with that. Harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour are genuine policing matters, just as they would be if someone who was not begging or sleeping rough was behaving in that way.”
“Some respondents were keen to change the narrative around homelessness and begging, with the view that, rather than punitive measures, we should focus our collective efforts on providing support to those involved in such street activity, and I concur with that. Many commended the police for their compassionate and supportive approach, which I echo unreservedly. Police initially adopt an engage-and-explain approach and direct those who rough-sleep or beg to wider partners in the statutory voluntary and community sector, a sector that I want to recognise for the incredible and difficult work that it does in providing support to some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society — work that is often done with limited public interest or support.”
“The only gap left by repeal would be an inability to deal with what was referred to as "simple begging" through an out-of-court disposal or prosecution. In a modern society, no one should be criminalised for simply begging who is not otherwise behaving in way that would attract criminal sanction for people who are not begging. Poverty and destitution should not be a crime. <BR /> <BR />The public consultation that followed the review sought views on my proposals to proceed with the repeal without the need for replacement legislation. The majority of respondents supported my proposals, stating that criminalisation exacerbated the existing vulnerabilities of those who begged or slept rough.”
“<BR /> <BR />My decision to repeal without the need for replacement legislation followed a detailed review of existing legislation and public consultation on the legislative proposals. The aim of the review, carried out in liaison with the PSNI and preceding the consultation, was to determine how existing legislation was used and whether replacement legislation was needed in the event of repeal in the context of existing offences that could be used to deal with associated problematic behaviours that crossed the criminal threshold. No criminal behaviours encountered by the PSNI when dealing with those who beg or sleep rough were identified by the police as incapable of being addressed under the existing criminal legislative framework.”
“I trust that the amendments will have the full support of all Members. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 70 introduces a new clause and a new schedule to the Bill to repeal section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises rough sleeping, and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847, which criminalises begging. That outdated and archaic legislation criminalises some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Rough sleeping and begging are often linked to underlying issues such as homelessness, poverty, alcohol, drug addiction, poor mental health, sexual and domestic abuse, family breakdown, adverse childhood experiences and low educational attainment. I firmly believe that those complex and cross-cutting issues require a multi-agency response of support rather than the criminalisation of people simply because of their personal circumstances.”
“The provisions will bring us in line with neighbouring jurisdictions and ensure that Northern Ireland does not fall behind in its response to organised crime. <BR /> <BR />The new offences will be an additional tool for law enforcement to tackle organised crime, and the provisions, coupled with the associated significant penalties, will provide reassurance to the public by sending a strong message that no one is untouchable. I am sure that all of us have heard complaints from our constituents that, often, it is those on the fringes of organised crime who get prosecuted and those at the centre directing it who get away. This is a deliberate attempt on our part to ensure that those who orchestrate organised crime gangs and direct their operations are as amenable to justice as everyone in that organisation.”
“The legislation will provide a more effective approach to addressing the specific issue of involvement in organised crime, and the clauses define what constitutes an organised crime group and set out what it means to participate in the criminal activities of an organised crime group. <BR /> <BR />Some might ask why the amendments are needed. To that, I would reply that Northern Ireland is the only area of the United Kingdom or Ireland without bespoke organised crime legislation. While existing offences are utilised for prosecuting individuals for their specific offending, they do not accurately reflect the extent of offending or the potential larger role that those individual offences play in the overall operations of organised crime gangs.”
“Amendment Nos 45 to 48 create two new offences: participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. Specifically, the proposed provisions are intended to create specific legislation for prosecuting an individual involved in criminal conduct linked to serious organised crime in Northern Ireland; criminalise those who, at any level, are involved in the commissioning and undertaking of serious organised crime; and pursue those who work together to commit or conspire to commit serious crimes that are intended to generate material benefit directly or indirectly.”
“I fear that the distance between this debate and the votes on it is not particularly conducive to our remembering everything that has been discussed and the assurances that have been given. However, I trust that Members are so committed, given that they are still here at 8.40 pm, that they will, no doubt, be studying it avidly over the next few days.”
“Given the Committee's lack of support for such an amendment, I remain of the view that an additional requirement to report on the operation of those long-standing and well-established provisions is not beneficial but may prove resource-intensive, given the potential for duplicate reporting. As such, I do not support the amendment tabled by Mr Frew, Mr Bradley and Mr Kingston. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I thank all Members for the manner in which they have engaged in this Consideration Stage debate. It has been a productive and helpful one on the group 2 amendments. Although we will draw our remarks to a conclusion after the Committee Chair makes his winding-up speech on the debate, hopefully, Members will go home, read Hansard, cogitate on it and remember what we discussed today when it comes to voting next week.”
“<BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 16 April 2026, the Committee for Justice considered that proposal, and its views were reported as follows:”
“<BR /> <BR />It was further advised that the permanent legislative underpinning of the temporary live link powers in the Coronavirus Act represented only a small part of the wider provisions in those planned live link amendments. The greater proportion of powers in those amendments are measures to consolidate existing live link provisions that have been in operation since 2003 across several separate pieces of legislation. Given that the figures for the number of audio and visual connections for remote or hybrid hearings are published annually as part of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service annual report and accounts and that those figures can be broken down on request, I wish to avoid any potential duplication of effort and requirements in that respect.”
“<BR /> <BR />The last amendment that I wish to speak to as part of this group is amendment No 65, as tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston. It seeks to place a requirement on my Department to appoint a person to conduct a review of the operation of those live link arrangements within three years of the provisions becoming operational. <BR /> <BR />There were a number of exchanges of correspondence with the Committee in that respect at Committee Stage, in which it was pointed out that the powers in the Coronavirus Act that facilitated the broader use of live links in courts and tribunals have been operational for six years and are now well established. The use of live links in those settings is already monitored and recorded by court staff. That information is available without the need for such a formal reporting requirement.”
“The same protection applies for the solemnity and integrity of proceedings whether a person is participating in person or remotely, including the prevention of unauthorised recording or transmitting of a live hearing, as well as unlawful interruption of that hearing. Finally, those attending remotely will be subject to the same requirements that their evidence be truthful, or they will be held to account for perjury, as would occur had they been present in a courtroom. <BR /> <BR />Live links are a key element of the modernisation of courts and tribunals in Northern Ireland. The provisions will help to achieve digital strategy commitments. I therefore commend them to the House, as I said, on the strong basis that they are applied in the interests of justice.”
“That will include a statutory duty that the court should have regard to any guidance issued by the Lady Chief Justice when determining the interests of justice; a requirement for the court or tribunal to hear the views of the parties and/or the witnesses on the matter of the use of live links for the hearing or part of a hearing to satisfy itself that live links enable the person giving evidence to see and hear all other persons who are participating in proceedings; provision to ensure that there is no diminution of current entitlements for vulnerable witnesses or defendants to enable their effective participation; a presumption that attendance will be by electronic means unless the court directs physical attendance in civil or criminal proceedings where the only party in a hearing or application is a public official; a power to make secondary legislation on the designation of expert witnesses, as the provisions in section 52 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 are to be replaced by the Bill; a power to vary, as well as rescind, a live link direction; and provision to ensure that the public can be enabled to see or hear proceedings if they are conducted wholly remotely or where there was identified, by a court or tribunal, a need to transmit the proceedings to another identified location in the interests of justice.”
“<BR /> <BR />A public consultation indicated almost unanimous support for retaining the facility for remote hearings through using live links, provided that — it is worth stressing — a court or tribunal considers that their use is in the interests of justice. To that end, the proposed new model is broadly similar in approach to the temporary provisions, as it is based on an interests-of-justice test.”
“However, the proposed amendments do not simply replicate the provisions in the 2020 Act, which were brought forward at speed in response to a public health emergency, but aim to meet our longer-term needs for criminal and civil proceedings by repealing, replacing and updating the provisions in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, among others. They also reflect legislative developments in neighbouring jurisdictions that enable the conduct of more court and tribunal cases remotely using live links in those jurisdictions.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now address the amendments tabled in my name, amendment Nos 53 to 64, which allow for the greater use of live links in courts and tribunal settings. A great deal of the justice system currently relies on the live links provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which require regular extension via secondary legislation. New primary legislation is required to retain the wider use of live links in courts and tribunals going forward.”
“During Committee Stage, my officials advised the Committee that they did not consider the proposal for a review mechanism to report on the use of live links by the police to be strictly necessary, as there were already existing arrangements to monitor and review the use of live links in those circumstances. My officials also cautioned that sample size was likely to be small and any review would have to be conducted in a way that did not impose an undue burden on the PSNI. However, I recognise that there are possible benefits in carrying out a proportionate review to ensure that live links are used appropriately and effectively and to identify areas for improvement. I am therefore content to support the amendment on that basis.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the PACE codes are the most appropriate means of addressing the issues, rather than placing them in the Bill, and the most effective means of allowing us to keep up to date with developments in that space, given that they are secondary legislation and therefore allow us more flexibility in updating them, I will not support the amendments. Furthermore, as we will update the PACE codes only for live links, it will be much shorter than updates that the Committee has dealt with in the past. <BR /> <BR />The next amendment in the group is No 52, tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Justice. It establishes a review mechanism on the operation of the live link provisions by the police.”
“Work on the proposed updates has already commenced, and the Department will engage with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Children's Commissioner on those provisions. The updates will then be published for consultation and brought to the Justice Committee for consideration before they are laid before the Assembly. That work will be taken forward as soon as possible after Royal Assent, and the live links provisions will not be commenced until the PACE code updates are in place.”
“I will now speak to amendment Nos 49 to 51, tabled by Ms Emma Sheerin, Ms Aoife Finnegan and Ms Ciara Ferguson. The amendments relate to clause 21, which deals with the use of live links by police for custody purposes. The proposed amendments all seek to impose conditions on the use of clause 21 that will be addressed by my Department through updates to PACE codes before the provisions are commenced. PACE codes support the exercise of police powers and set out safeguards for individuals. My officials will update the codes, primarily code C, to support the effective operation of the live links provisions and to ensure that they are fully embedded in the other safeguards and protections for those who are in custody.”
“To do as the Members have suggested would risk drawing more young people into the custodial justice system when the option of community orders is available for those who are under 14 years old. We are therefore legislating only for what happens in practice. That position has received considerable support. For those reasons, I oppose amendment No 44 and ask others to do so also.”
“For example, there are custodial sentences covered under article 45 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order 1998 for grave offences or the public protection sentences, such as extended or indeterminate custodial sentences, found in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 for serious sexual or violent offences. <BR /> <BR />During its development, we set a general expectation that the new order would apply to children aged 14 and above. The issue was publicly consulted on and received strong support. Likewise, the majority of commentators who gave evidence on the Bill either had no concerns about it or were fully supportive. It is clear from my Department's statistics that courts are not using custody as a sentencing option for younger children in any way, which is a positive position that we wish to maintain.”
“<BR /> <BR />We know that contact with the justice system generally is detrimental to children's longer-term outcomes and that that becomes progressively worse the further into the system a child goes. Therefore, keeping younger children out of custody and, instead, providing targeted support under community supervision is a better option. Where children under 14 commit serious offences that warrant significant custodial time, there are other sentencing options available to the judiciary without needing to rely on the new YCSO legislation.”
“While I understand the rationale set out for amendment No 44, tabled by Mr Frew, Mr Bradley and Mr Kingston, which would align the lower age of youth custody and supervision orders with the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland, I cannot agree with it. The starting age for YCSOs was never intended to align with the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Children aged 13 and under are being removed from the scope of the new order deliberately, as we do not wish custody to be used for that younger age group for anything other than very serious offences. That is in line with the intended aims of the new legislative provisions to increase our compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to make the use of custody for children a measure of last resort.”
“I want to speak to the amendments in group 2 as they relate to the different Parts of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will begin with amendment Nos 41 to 43, which were tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Justice. I am content to support the Committee's amendments, which introduce the inclusion of a child's vulnerabilities as a relevant consideration when the police or courts are taking a decision whether to release a child on bail or to impose bail conditions. Provisions in the Bill already introduce the need to take account of issues such as a child's age, maturity and understanding and their individual needs, but Committee members felt that, on the basis of written and oral evidence that they had received, consideration of vulnerabilities should also be included. I have no objection to that. <BR /> <BR />I move on to clause 12.”
“If there is shame, that is part of the reason why we reorganised the Courts and Tribunals Service, because people who are going into the building may be attending court or a tribunal or other court business such as, for example, where they are going through probate because someone is deceased. We need to be careful about making pejorative judgements about people who have to attend court. That is not the issue of substance here. This is about efficiency, effectiveness and ensuring that expert witnesses can be available at the discretion of the court.”
“This is a very technical point. As I said, those are expert witnesses. This is an efficient way to do business, in that it allows them to be more available to the court without having to cancel days of their normal work environment in order to make themselves available. They are able to attend court remotely, and they have the capability to do so. They are often being cross-examined on very technical issues. It is not about creating a two-tier system. If the judge believes that the person needs to be present in the court, they still have the flexibility to request that where it is in the interests of justice, as they do with anyone else. <BR /> <BR />There should not be shame in people having to attend court. That is a presumption of guilt on the part of those who arrive at court.”
“I am grateful that the Member has read out that list. It is a list of organisations or individuals that are expert witnesses. They are on that list because an expert witness will often have to give evidence at multiple trials in many places many times. The idea is to give that presumption because they are expert witnesses. Such a presumption would not apply, for example, in the case of someone who is appearing in court for the first time. It may not be the right environment for them to be in, and that is why the remainder refers to the needs of the court. It is ultimately at the judge's discretion. We are simply saying that the presumption is in favour where it is an expert witness.”
“I am not sure from where the Member got the impression that I am frightened of any review. I think that it is slightly unnecessary to review the efficacy of the process. As a result of the Coronavirus Act, the live link provisions have been in operation successfully for six years now. More than that, many of the other things to which the Member refers that have been corralled in the Bill to provide clarity and streamline legislation have been in operation for years. Some of them have been in operation from as early as 2003. That therefore is the issue. It is not about fear. Rather, it is about the unnecessary work associated with doing a further review when we got to this stage with live links.”
“<BR /> <BR />We therefore need not to be doomsayers when it comes to live links. It is important that they be used in the interests of justice, and that caveat is already in the Bill, but it is also important that we recognise how beneficial live links have been, particularly in speeding up court processes. For example, they have allowed more expert witnesses to give evidence remotely, which is beneficial, and facilitated our ability to run the remote evidence centres for the most vulnerable people in the justice system.”
“The question of whether a judge finds someone in contempt is to do with their conduct in the trial. It has nothing to do with live links. People are regularly held in contempt of court when they are there in person. What is key to note is that, to date, there has been no example of a case that has been overturned on appeal or on any other basis because of the fact that it used live links. I ask that the Member bear in mind that the success that we have seen in, for example, remote evidence centres, particularly with vulnerable witnesses and child witnesses, has hinged entirely on their being able to appear via a live link. It creates a much better environment for them than court does, because it is an environment that is less intimidating and less frightening.”
“Part of the reason is that what was designed in this, both for custody and for use in the courts, does not simply replicate the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act, although it does that. It brings together a lot of provisions, some dating back some time, about the use of live links in courts and for remote hearings and so on, so it was much more complicated than simply transposing the live links from the Coronavirus Act into the Bill. That was explored at length with the Committee during Committee Stage.”
“It is important that we take that evidence on board, which is why 14 was the starting point for a custodial order.”