Paul Frew
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct.”
“In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC.”
“That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again.”
“The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court. <BR /> <BR />Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing th…”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now.”
“Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,736 lines we hold for Paul Frew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 75.
“The Committee heard detailed evidence on those amendments and spent some time considering them. Having received the text of the Minister's vagrancy amendments in December 2024, the Committee included them in its call for evidence on the Bill. The amendments aim to repeal section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. I think that we can all question the continued use of such antiquated legislation. Indeed, if you read the 1824 Act, you will see that some of its language, with references to "rogues and vagabonds", is certainly not what we would use today. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was advised by the Department that there has been considerable criticism by homelessness support organisations, the media and some of the good folk in the Chamber that that outdated legislation criminalises homelessness and begging.”
“On those issues, the Department advised that it was apparent that neighbouring jurisdictions have their own nuanced version of serious organised crime offences. The proposed offences in the amendments that we are considering today are akin to those in neighbouring jurisdictions while also taking into account the unique challenges in Northern Ireland. Having considered the evidence received and the Department's response to the concerns raised, the Committee concluded that it was content with the proposed ministerial amendments. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment No 70, the repeal of public order offences via new clause 23A, and amendment No 128, the new schedule associated with it, which I will call the Minister's "vagrancy amendments", just to make things easier.”
“It was determined that that is already covered by the common law defence of duress, which could potentially apply where there has been evidence of threats. In addition, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 provides a statutory defence in relation to certain criminal offences. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People queried why, through the amendments, the Department was seeking to introduce penalties that are different from those in other jurisdictions and how the Department envisages the new offences working for cross-border organised crime in the context of exploitation and trafficking.”
“The House will no doubt be aware of the concerns raised across the UK about the use of children and young people in so-called county lines and other organised crime. Protections that may be afforded by a specific offence are therefore welcomed. The Human Rights Commission highlighted the risk that people who are victims could be prosecuted under the legislation, particularly women who are subject to coercive control, children and victims of trafficking and modern slavery. <BR /> <BR />The Department advised that some thought had been given to how the legislation could be drafted so that children, women or vulnerable people were not innocently captured by the offence — for example, by considering the inclusion of statutory defences, which the Department tested with justice partners.”
“The children's rights group Children in Northern Ireland suggested the need for statutory recognition of child criminal exploitation and a welfare-first approach, rather than criminalisation. The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland raised similar issues. In response to such comments, the Department clarified that the recent Westminster Crime and Policing Bill created a specific child criminal exploitation offence that was being extended to Northern Ireland. The Department said that the introduction of such an offence should act as a deterrent to gangs from enlisting children in their criminality, as they would be charged as child exploiters, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.”
“As the Minister outlined, amendment Nos 45 to 48 add four new clauses and a schedule to the Bill that define what constitutes an organised crime group and what it means to participate in the activities of an organised crime group. The amendments also create new offences of participating in and directing the activities of an organised crime group. The amendments were broadly supported by all the respondents to the Committee who commented on the proposed clauses. <BR /> <BR />The concerns expressed mainly centred around the potential exploitation of children and the vulnerable by organised crime groups and the need to ensure that they are not treated purely as perpetrators of crime, as they could, in fact, be victims themselves.”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. It will come as no surprise to you that I will get a wee break from my speech during Question Time before continuing with it thereafter. I know that my speech will be riveting and that you might not be able to sustain Question Time with the excitement. <BR /> <BR />I begin my remarks by saying that I thought that the first day of this debate was very good and very productive. It showed that we can work together as a Department, a Minister, a Chairperson, a Committee, an Assembly and all who take part in that. I commend the House for the debate that we had last Tuesday on the first two groups of amendments. <BR /> <BR />I will begin my comments on the ministerial amendments in group 3 as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. I will then speak in a personal capacity.”
“I am not a million miles from the Member's position on that. We do not want to see young people being put in custody. That is why we have the Youth Justice Agency and youth justice courts. I therefore agree that our positions are not that far away from each other. I am sure that we will return to the issue when we come to debate the amendments in group 6.”
“That is why we think that it is neater if we leave that at the age of criminal responsibility, irrespective of whether that is 10, 12, 14 or 16, according to the will of the House. We will know for sure that a youth custody and supervision order can be used for any child over the age of criminal responsibility. Judges and the courts will know that also. It therefore does not create the differential that the Lady Chief Justice was concerned about, as I mentioned. I hope that that clarifies our position.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. Just to be clear, we do not want to see the age of criminal responsibility rise. Irrespective, however, of the petition of concern and the number of Members who have signed the notice so far, we also know that the age of criminal responsibility could be raised. Even if it is not, however, we still believe that the courts should have youth custody and supervision orders at their disposal. In her speech or maybe it was in an intervention, the Minister outlined all the serious tools that the court can use to place youngsters and children in custody. We are just saying that they should be applied across the board, so that the court can use them at its discretion.”
“The age of responsibility specified in article 3 is basically the minimum age of criminal responsibility. We are basically trying to stop the division between children who are 14 and those who are under and make it so that a youth custody and supervision order can be used for any child who is over the age of criminal responsibility, bearing in mind that the age of criminal responsibility in the Bill could well change in the coming days, with that change enacted into law.”
“She had asked me to further clarify amendment No 44, but I was absent because I had run out of the Chamber to get my charger for my device. Amendment No 44 says:”
“<BR /> <BR />To conclude my remarks as Chair of the Committee, I reiterate that the amendments that seek to insert the word "vulnerabilities" into clauses 4, 5 and 6 aim to ensure that the increasing complexity of issues facing children and young people is taken into account when decisions on bail and remand are being made. Our amendment No 52 — I have got that right this time — which makes provision to review the use of live links, is important to ensure that they operate effectively and that the rights of those who participate in proceedings are safeguarded. I commend the Committee's amendments to the House and ask that the House support them when we eventually vote on the group 2 amendments. <BR /> <BR />I want to give a clarification to Emma Sheerin.”
“Police custody represents a different environment from courts and tribunals, so a review will allow that to be assessed. That seems sensible. Connie Egan stated that the Alliance Party will support the amendment. Ciara Ferguson noted that the Criminal Justice Inspection already inspects custody suites. She outlined that Sinn Féin believes that protections to safeguard people should be in the Bill. The Minister stated that she did not believe that the Committee's live link amendment was "strictly necessary". She thought that the "sample size" might be "small", but she recognised the benefits that could come from a proportionate review. The Minister is therefore content to support the Committee's amendment on the review of the use of live links.”
“Emma Sheerin said that the amendments are "positive" and "should be welcomed". Connie Egan stated that Alliance welcomes the Committee amendments. Aoife Finnegan pointed out that vulnerabilities can impact on behaviours and decision-making and that they are often not visible or easily recognised. The inclusion of "vulnerabilities" reinforces a child-centred approach and can reduce the likelihood of future harm. The Minister had no objection to the amendments, and the Committee welcomed that. <BR /> <BR />Committee amendment No 52 concerns the review of the use of live links. Mark Durkan indicated that the key question is not whether proceedings can be conducted by live links but whether people can participate "effectively".”
“Before I turn to the key points that were made, I want to acknowledge Ciara Ferguson's comments about the lack of suitable accommodation. We received representations from many who were concerned that clause 8 would not be commenced. We have urged the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice to work together on that matter to ensure that the clause can be commenced as soon as possible. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the key points that Members made about the Committee's amendment Nos 41, 42 and 43, which relate to the word "vulnerabilities". Mark Durkan stated that the amendments are "sensible and proportionate", as vulnerabilities can arise for many reasons, and we need to ensure that they are considered explicitly rather than letting them fall into broader categories.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank all the Members for their contributions to the debate on the group 2 amendments, particularly those who spoke in support of the Committee amendments. The House has heard from other Members who have tabled amendments in the group. The Minister has spoken to her amendments and has, of course, responded to the points and comments made by Members during the debate. I thank the Minister and all the Members who gave way and allowed others to come in with debate and points, because that adds to the debate. <BR /> <BR />I will focus my remarks on winding on the Committee's amendments before I come to the amendments that were tabled in the name of my party colleagues and me.”
“I thank the Member for giving me that opportunity to correct the record.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is helpful that he has done so, because I wish to correct the record. When I was speaking as Chairperson of the Justice Committee, I inadvertently promoted my amendment No 65, rather than amendment No 52, which is what I should have said. <BR /> <BR />I also said that the report must include "the number of directions" from courts and tribunals, when I should have said that it must include:”
“I thank the Minister for that contribution and clarification. I will end it there. We have had a good debate, including the to-and-fro with the Minister and other Members, and I thank everyone for their contributions. I will be taking notes, because I will be making a winding-up speech on this group of amendments.”
“I thank the Minister for that clarification. It does not feel right to me that those organisations may get preferential treatment over the ordinary man in the street who could end up in court. There is a massive stigma when someone has to attend court, even when they are innocent. You usually end up having to run the gauntlet outside the court setting. You are walking, not running, but it makes it look as though you are running from the cameras. You are jumping into a car while the cameras are all over you. The car speeds off, and you look really guilty; it looks really bad. <BR /> <BR />There are reasons why we have to have our day in court, and justice has to be served. We have to make sure that live links do not become a default position or that people get special privileges just because of the office that they hold.”
“That also includes the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), the regional agency for public health and social well-being, the regional Business Services Organisation — really? — the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland transport holding company and Northern Ireland Water Ltd, which should probably be up in court more often than it is. Why would you need to give those particular bodies the presumption of using live links? Would that lead to more effective government, less time wasted and less transport? It might be because of security.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 124 inserts into a new schedule 5 the presumption of giving evidence by live links in certain cases, which includes the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers; a district council; the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland; a constable; the Police Service of Northern Ireland; any body of constables; any body of special constables; the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Police Ombudsman; the Probation Board; the director of the Serious Fraud Office; His Majesty's Revenue and Customs; the National Crime Agency; and even health trusts.”
“We have said countless times that there should not be a default position on live links for courts, and I agree with that. We do not want to get to the point where live links are the default position, albeit they speed up justice, help vulnerable witnesses or help children, all of which we support.”
“I thank the Minister for that contribution. She says that the live links that came out of the Coronavirus Act have been working successfully for six years, but how does she know that? Does the Minister not agree that a review could iron out any problems, fault lines or errors in the system in order to make it even better than it is? I will leave that point there. I hope that Members will consider voting for the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I will not go through all the Minister's amendments to do with live links in courts, but I will speak to amendment No 124. I find it interesting.”
“I agree with the Minister about the benefits that live links have brought. I absolutely have supported those benefits as they have come forward. I really do think that the use of live links has been a very good exercise. I have been a cheerleader for them. I say again that they are one of the only positives that I have seen come out of the Coronavirus Act, especially where they have involved vulnerable witnesses giving evidence or vulnerable people appearing in court. It is therefore really important that we get live links right. The Minister talks about the virtues and benefits of live links. Why, then, is she frightened of a review of their operation?”
“I could be wrong, but I am almost sure that a case was reported on in which there was a contempt of court charge because someone did not feel that they had got their day in court, and, when they objected, they were held in contempt. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure that that has been reported. I am almost sure that I know of the case and the people involved.”
“I have always supported the use of live links in court. I have always commended that element of the Coronavirus Act, even though I detest that Act and everything — the damage and the harm — that it did to our people. I am therefore a big supporter of live links in our courts and, now, their extension to custody suites. As a big supporter, however, I believe that we need a review, because I have heard stories and seen scenarios in which people have appeared in court via a live link and something awful has happened, but they did not realise that it had. They might not have heard something appropriately or correctly, and, as a result, they might not have got proper representation. In one case, someone was charged with contempt of court.”
“I get that from the Minister. I understand that explanation. It just shows how complicated it is and how scant the Coronavirus Act was with regard to the pressurised system at that time, as we rushed through legislation to create something that created the live links in courts. <BR /> <BR />We need a review.”
“Live links had been operational since the Coronavirus Act 2020, and, for the life of me, I do not know why that could not be contained in the Bill and how it came after the custody stuff, which, I thought, would have been more complicated. However, with the amendments that the Minister has proposed, we can see just how complicated it is.”
“Think about how much more complicated it is in the stressful setting of a custody suite. Think of the jeopardy and how much more pressurised that is if the person who is being interviewed, be it a defendant, a person of interest or a witness, is talking through a screen to somebody who is miles away, so we need the review mechanisms. <BR /> <BR />While I am at it, I will speak to my review of the use of live links, which is amendment No 65, a new clause. We really need to review how live links are used in the court setting. I will say one thing: when we got the Justice Bill, all the live links stuff to do with custody was in there. However, there was nothing in the Bill at Second Reading about court.”
“I do not know the answer to that, but I know that the custody stuff will be done under PACE codes, so those can be covered without putting them in the Bill. Again, I am sure that the Minister might cover that in her contribution. <BR /> <BR />I wholeheartedly support the Committee's amendment No 52. We need a review of live links in the custody suite, because it is a new thing. It is brand new, to the point that it has not been used before in a really stressful scenario and situation. We will have somebody in a custody suite, no matter what age they are, to be fair, and they are being interviewed remotely: well, we all know what it is like when we have to use Zoom, even to have a meeting, as opposed to being in the room with the person. It is much more complicated through Zoom.”
“That does away with the concern that the Lady Chief Justice has, first, with regard to the coercion of younger people and, secondly, the fact that there can be no differential when you are faced in a court with two children aged 13 and 14. My amendment simplifies that completely, so I plead with the House to consider the amendment seriously and to consider supporting it. <BR /> <BR />I go on to Sinn Féin's amendment Nos 49, 50 and 51. On the face of it, a lot of that stuff is sensible and good, and I like to think that it would be common practice. The question that I have, which I put tentatively, as with the last group of amendments, is whether it is needed in the Bill or whether it can be done though PACE codes, which are operational for the police or the courts.”
“I thank the Minister and Emma Sheerin for their contributions. It is a good debate. However, we will debate raising the age of criminal responsibility in another group. Therefore, it could well be that the age of criminal responsibility lands at 14 anyway. In effect, you could vote for something that makes what I am trying to achieve a reality. If that is the case — that is why the amendment simplifies it — treating it, capping it or keeping it at the age of criminal responsibility means that those youth custody and supervision orders can be used. If it were at the minute, it would be 10, but, if it changes and it is the will of the Assembly that it changes, it could be 12, 14 or 16. I am simplifying the use of youth custody and supervision orders by my amendment.”
“I get the point that the Member makes, but why are we bringing in and deploying youth custody and supervision orders then? Why are we setting them at age 14? To use your argument, will you not be compassionate to a 14-year-old, a 15-year-old or a 16-year-old? If we are going to deploy —.”
“If people know that there is a differential, whether it be through the deployment of a youth custody and supervision order or the age of criminal responsibility, which we will come to in another group, there is real potential that, if that differential is known to older people or criminal gangs, they will make an effort to ensure that the people whom they coerce and deploy, whether it be to run drugs, move arms or be involved in all sorts of criminality, will be children who are below the threshold for a youth custody and supervision order or to be liable for that offence. The Assembly must take that really seriously. We could —.”
“I get the Minister's point about trafficking. However, the situation in the real world is this: if there is a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old up in front of the court, they will have to be treated differently. You are, if you like, tying the hands of the court, which should be independent and have the wide-ranging gamut of tools at its disposal to dispense justice in the way in which it sees fit. The Lady Chief Justice is correct. I get what the Minister says about people being trafficked and coerced into criminality. However, there is a reality out there.”
“However, if a youth custody and supervision order is good enough for a 14-year-old, it is good enough for a 13-year-old. My amendment lays that down so that it simplifies when those measures can be deployed in order for the court to have a full gamut of tools at its disposal to assist it in delivering justice. That is so important, and the Lady Chief Justice states that. However, the Lady Chief Justice also states something else. It is borne out in a recent case. It could be older children, but it could also be criminal gangs or terrorist outfits —.”
“That is really clear. Here we have a scenario in which a 14-year-old and a 13-year-old are in front of a Youth Court, and you are taking away the discretion of the court to use a youth custody and supervision order. That is really important. We all talk about the independence of courts and judges, and that is right, but we need to give those judges the tools to use at their discretion. My amendment fixes that by stating that anyone over the age of criminal responsibility can get a youth custody and supervision order. <BR /> <BR />It is absolutely true that we do not send 10-year-olds, 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds to prison. We rarely have had to do that throughout history. We have measures in place such as diversion and youth courts, and there are measures that we can deploy to ensure that children do not go to prison.”
“In other words, to be coerced. The Lady Chief Justice ended by saying:”
“I will speak to my amendment, amendment No 44, which is about youth custody and supervision orders (YCSOs). The court should be able to use those tools for everyone over the age of criminal responsibility. When it comes to everyone who has matured to the age of criminal responsibility, I believe that the court should be able to use youth custody and supervision orders. Why do I say that? It is clear. When the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Committee, she said:”
“However, there have been times when I have visited a police station where a young person was being held to speak to the custody sergeant or, at least, somebody at the counter to try to get reassurance for that mother and father. That is why this is so important. I have seen young people leave a police station in absolute bits because of something that they have been caught up in and because they have been in a police station. Their parents have also been in absolute bits. Therefore, it is really important that we measure this in some way and leave no doubt about what a custody sergeant should be looking out for with regard to young people.”
“There is very limited scope for what we can do, say or advise that parent. Of course, we would always advise them to seek legal advice.”
“need to be taken into consideration. That wording is sprinkled in three places in the Bill. We can all ascertain somebody's age and, to a certain degree, we can measure somebody's needs, but how do we measure maturity? It is a really hard task to measure somebody's maturity compared with their age. That is why the Committee has gone down the road of trying to put in the word "vulnerabilities", and I support that. That would strengthen that provision in that a custody sergeant would have to have regard to "the juvenile's age, maturity, vulnerabilities and needs", which is important. <BR /> <BR />I have been brought face to face with the criminal justice system, as I am sure that many Members have, when a parent of a young person who has been caught up in something bad has contacted me, as an MLA, to see what I can do to help.”
“First, I will speak to the Committee amendments that add the word "vulnerabilities". I have absolutely no doubt that it is scary for a child or a young person who is involved in the criminal justice system. At least, it should be scary for any young person who is involved in the justice system, because, if they are there, it is because of a very serious matter. A custody sergeant should, therefore, take vulnerabilities into consideration. I do not think that the wording in the Bill is sufficient, and neither does the Committee. The Bill states that, in a custody setting:”
“However, the Department advised that, as the provisions have been in operation for some time, the use of live links is monitored, and provided details of work that has already been undertaken on that. The Committee discussed that further at its meeting on 16 April, and Committee members indicated that they were content not to proceed with the Committee amendment, given the existing reporting processes. However, the Committee advised the Department of its view that those reporting processes and mechanisms must be made more robust and that they should be expanded to include qualitative data, including evaluation of the operation of live links from an end-user perspective. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson on justice.”
“The Department advised the Committee that it is satisfied that robust safeguards are built into the new provisions, as well as there being safeguards in other supporting legislation and guidance relating to young people, and that that is sufficient for the courts to be able to address those concerns. It also advised that the few children who are defendants in a criminal trial will attend remotely only for interlocutory hearings, rather than for the trial. <BR /> <BR />Having weighed up the evidence that it received, the Committee concluded that it was content with the Minister's amendments to make primary legislative provision for live links in courts and tribunals. As with the provisions in the Bill, the Committee discussed a potential amendment to monitor and evaluate the use of live links in courts and tribunals.”
“The participants felt that there were pros and cons to the use of live links in courts and that, while it would be good to have that option, it should not be the default position. Although the young people welcomed live links, they challenged an assumption that many of us are likely to have, which is that young people are more comfortable with the use of technology, including live links. That is not necessarily the case. Some of the participating young people felt that proceedings were harder to follow via live links, or that they may not be treated as fairly, and some said that it can be a dehumanising experience.”
“Similar concerns were raised about the ministerial amendments to the live links provisions in the Bill. It was reiterated that it is important to ensure that all those involved in the process understand their rights and that they have access to the same information remotely that they have access to when they are being seen face to face. The Committee received assurances from the Department that there are protections in place. The Lady Chief Justice has issued guidance on the use of video technology that protects the rights of defendants, victims and witnesses. <BR /> <BR />The Committee held round-table engagement events with community groups and young people with lived experience of the justice system.”
“The Committee recommended that those extensions be approved by the Assembly in the knowledge that the provisions would be permanently addressed through primary legislation in the Justice Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed the use of live links with the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ). During an oral evidence session on delays in the criminal justice system, members heard that the LCJ is supportive of the use of live links because they can streamline the system and save costs. In her written submission, the Lady Chief Justice commented that they:”