Jon Burrows
North Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“It is invasive for someone to be cross-examined by the person who has caused them grave trauma and great hurt — the person who has victimised them. Cross-examination can be done by legal counsel, which is sound.”
“It is adversarial for good reason, but there are really important things that we can do when it comes to process, the system, dealing with cross-examination, disclosure and character references. I hope that we have a victims and witnesses commissioner who is the loudest and strongest voice for victims.”
“I agree. I rang one of the victims on the evening after the conviction and apologised. Even though I had no role over Mr Campbell, I said that I was ashamed that that man, Lloyd-Lavery, was ever employed by the party or by an MLA and ashamed that the man who gave him a character reference was a former chair of our party.”
“I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, because our justice system in Northern Ireland is tilted towards the interests of suspects and perpetrators over and above the interests of victims and the general public.”
“There is always a balance to be struck between the rights of an unconvicted person who has been accused of a crime and the rights of the victim, and we need to get that balance right. We should never forget that there have been miscarriages of justice in our country down through the years.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Education Minister should have included the measure in the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. That would have achieved it far more efficiently, but it was not done.”
The complete record
Every one of 773 lines we hold for Jon Burrows, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 16.
“Simon Harris's so-called blueprint for Irish unity and his claim that there is a duty on all parties to work towards Irish unity is a stunning example of tone-deaf statecraft. Under the Belfast Agreement, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until a majority says otherwise. Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were amended so that the people of Northern Ireland could get on with making this place work and making it peaceful and prosperous without a third country making claims again on Northern Ireland. We can dress it up as the Irish Government seeking a united Ireland, but let us call it what it is: one sovereign country seeking to break up another sovereign country.”
“We also need to be able to articulate facts about the speed of our asylum system and the deficiencies in our common travel area and the fact that many migrants contacted me this weekend to say, "Jon, thank you for speaking up for us, because we did this the right way — we went about immigration the right way — and, therefore, people shouldn't take shortcuts and do it illegally". <BR /> <BR />My party, unlike many others, always stands for the rule of law and order. I condemn the violence, and I wish Stephen Ogilvie well.”
“That would stop the police even investigating people up to the age of 14 who might have been involved in serious crime, such as burning down a Glider or burning an immigrant out of their home. That change will mean that, if you are 13 years and 300-odd days old, it is not a crime to burn a migrant out of their home. It is simply not a crime. That sends the wrong signal at the wrong time. <BR /> <BR />As a body of political leaders, we should be able to talk about immigration in a non-inflammatory way — to separate legal, illegal and asylum — and to say that it is right to deport foreign criminals in the same way as it is right for the authorities in Europe, America or Canada to deport a UK citizen who commits a crime over there. That is not racist. We need to be able to articulate these things.”
“Burning down a Glider bus is just an act of wanton criminality. Forcing people out of their home or burning a home because of the colour of the skin of someone who is in it is an act of unadulterated racism. I support the Police Service in rounding up and bringing to justice everyone who was involved in that. <BR /> <BR />You have to be consistent in your support for the police and the justice system. Mr Carroll criticises the police for not intervening, but he also criticises them for firing baton rounds. He would not see them have tasers; he would not see them have CS spray. There are many Members who want to disarm the police of every option they have to deal with criminals and then criticise them when they do not intervene in a riot. There are also Members who will vote today to change the age of criminal responsibility.”
“As I have said before, the brutal attack on Stephen Ogilvie shocked not just the people of Northern Ireland but the entire world. It was savage and brutal, and I am glad that someone was swiftly arrested and charged. We must let due process take its course. I spoke this morning to Maitiu Mag Tighearnan, the have-a-go hero with the hurley stick who intervened and, no doubt, saved Stephen Ogilvie's life. What a man he is. His humility on the phone with me was simply inspiring and humbling. <BR /> <BR />I will address immigration in a moment, but it is important to say first that all violence is wrong today, tomorrow and yesterday. The racist violence that we saw was horrendous. I call "traitors" people who would chase nurses from our hospitals, where they are trying to treat our citizens, because of the colour of their skin.”
“This is on a slight tangent, and I might get told off. You talked about the police having powers. All of the powers that we are talking about could be scuppered if we change the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14. If, for example, someone under 14 on an e-scooter kills someone as a result of dangerous driving, they could not be arrested.”
“That created a huge fairness issue, and I will always be watching to see that our senior police officers are held to account in the same way as the rank-and-file police officers. <BR /> <BR />With those caveats in place, I am glad to support the amendments. They tighten up some loopholes, and, if it is done right, we can have a swift, fair and accountable misconduct system for the PSNI.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is no place for bad cops. I will say two things, though. We must guard against jumping on good officers when a clip appears on social media. They are not the officers who we should be worried about; it is the officers who are predatory and corrupt that we should worry about. It is not about the officers who are out trying to arrest someone at 3.00 am, with the Monday morning quarterback asking questions about how they exercised their powers. The good cops must be protected. The second thing — I say this to every police officer in our land — is that there is a culture that emerged in the PSNI — I watched it at first hand — where senior police officers, particularly those above the rank of superintendent, were not held to account in the same way as the more junior officers of constable and sergeant.”
“Therefore, the only reason that I am supporting the amendment to introduce disciplinary proceedings against former officers is because of the clear understanding that I have from the Minister that the regulations will specify a time limit that will not go back as far as the Troubles. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 69, I fully support a police barring list that covers every UK law enforcement agency and details every police officer or retired police officer who is not fit to hold a role in law enforcement. The caveat is protection for their security, given that they have served in Northern Ireland. I support giving the Police Ombudsman the power to bring a case before criminal matters are concluded, on the basis that those powers work very well for the PSNI, and it allows police misconduct to be dealt with swiftly.”
“Sometimes, when the Police Service allows someone to resign during an investigation, it is because they are saving £50,000, £60,000, £70,000, £80,000 or £90,000 a year. I know of a superintendent who earned £80,000 a year, and he was suspended for five years, which cost £400,000. There is sometimes a cost reason for accepting a resignation. It is now easier to do this because we are going to be able to bring them back after they retire, and you have stopped the public purse taking a hit. <BR /> <BR />I will summarise my position and our party's position. On the basis that I have a red-line caveat, which is that I am concerned about opening a fresh front for legacy cases.”
“Someone came to me with a police officer who was alleged to have committed a criminal offence. The investigation was going to take about three years, but it was a serious investigation. I was confident that we would get a case in the end, but I had nothing in the meantime. If that officer offers to resign and you take their resignation, you save yourself three years' pay. Take an inspector who earns £55,000 or £60,000 per year: that is £200,000 plus pension contributions. It may be that, now that the Police Service can still take a case after the person has retired, you are more likely to say, "I am going to bite your hand off. Leave our organisation. I am going to stop paying you today. When we finish our investigation, if need be we will bring you back".”
“That is a good point. It is very complex. There are times when the Deputy Chief Constable can decline a resignation. It depends on an officer's level of service, their age and whether they are retiring with a full pension. <BR /> <BR />I will make another point, and then I will summarise my position. One thing that you have to be aware of is that there is an irony in this, and it sounds like a bit of a contradiction. If you give the PSNI the power to take a case after someone has left the organisation, you will, in my view — it is not actually a problem if I can explain it logically — see more officers retire before an investigation is complete. Let me give you an example. This is where the public commentary on this is not always informed. I will give you a practical example.”
“I know of one police officer who was suspended for seven years, and, by year 5, the police had lost track of him. They did not know where he was and thought that he was in another country, but the pay cheques kept flowing. It was astonishing.”
“However, there was a legal gap, which meant that the officer had to stay in service, suspended, simply because we did not have the legal power. Had the Police Service of Northern Ireland and not the ombudsman been investigating the case, we would have been able to dismiss the officer just like that because of incontrovertible evidence. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the closing of the loophole. It will allow bad cops to be dealt with quicker and it will be cheaper. Bear in mind that when an officer is at home on full pay for seven years, their pension increments are also growing. I know of police officers who have been off work for so long that they have hit the point at which they can retire with a full pension. Once you hit 60, you cannot stop someone from retiring, and they sail into the sunset.”
“There could have been a good reason for that, but, sometimes, it was simply daft, because there was clear evidence that someone was not suitable to be a police officer and would very easily be dismissed in a misconduct hearing, but you had a very long criminal case to take. I am glad that the loophole has been closed. The power to do that was not extended to the ombudsman, and now it will be. <BR /> <BR />I know of a case that was recently brought to court, which a senior member of staff from the ombudsman's office briefed me on seven years ago, in 2019. When they briefed me, there was sufficient evidence in the file that I was given, including screenshots and text messages, for me to dismiss that officer just like that. That was seven years ago.”
“Thank you for that. I am glad to hear that. That will reassure a lot of police officers. I support the introduction of the barred list. It is vital that that happens. <BR /> <BR />I support amendment Nos 76 and 77. It is worth saying that the power to take a fast-track case, as it is colloquially known in the police misconduct world — a sad world when you are in it — and what we describe as a "special case hearing" is vital. In short, it used to be that if someone was being criminally investigated, the police professional standards department could not take a disciplinary case.”
“Perhaps the Minister will give me some assurance on that.”
“<BR /> <BR />We need to remember that there is a threat in Northern Ireland that makes our policing distinct, and we should ensure, through the regulations that follow, that nothing would jeopardise the security of a police officer or an ex-police officer.”
“I can tell of a case in which a second officer — I will not mention their name — was dismissed from the PSNI. Because we do not have the barred list, which I asked for in 2019, that police officer, despite having been dismissed — there was a sexual element to it — turned up suddenly in Border Force. What happened when they were enforcing the law in Border Force? They were the subject of an allegation that was very similar to what happened in the PSNI. That is a gaping loophole that should never have been allowed. I therefore absolutely support having a barred list that clearly states who is not fit to be a police officer in Northern Ireland. If they are not fit to be a police officer here, they are not fit to be a police officer in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales or in any other law enforcement body.”
“I thank the Minister for that. It has been a worthy exchange that has really fleshed the issue out. We have heard it now: it will be recorded in Hansard, and we know the case of Pepper v Hart and all those things. The Minister has indicated that we are talking about 2012 or 2016, so we certainly are not talking about the 1980s, the 1990s or the 1970s. That gives me the reassurance that I need. I want to support this and see the bad cop brought back and the victim given justice, because there is no more despicable sight than a bent cop who has misused their authority. They damage everybody who has gone out to try to do their job with distinction and honour. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to amendment No 69, which will introduce the barred list. I am glad to see it. I called for it some time ago.”
“A couple of years ago, a police officer was convicted of perverting the course of justice in relation to the case of an innocent man who was beaten to death by a loyalist mob in Portadown. The person who stood up in front of the camera and said that that officer's pension should be taken away was me — the person who is often accused of seeing things only from the police's point of view.”
“Yes. I will clarify. For any criminal case, the standard of proof is that it must be beyond reasonable doubt — the standard is way up high — whereas, for a misconduct case, it is beyond the balance of probabilities, which could be 50% plus one or even 50·1%. There is a different standard. In England, most cases in which an officer is brought back for a hearing after they have retired are cases where there has not been a crime, because then victims can get accountability. That has been going on for some time in England, and we should have implemented it some time ago. I suggest that we should use our existing powers more when an officer is convicted of a crime. The Policing Board has full forfeiture powers over pensions, although that power is rarely used.”
“That activism opened up the ability of the ombudsman to look into cases from 30 years before the ombudsman's office was conceived. <BR /> <BR />It is important. The next time that the Minister is on her feet, I ask that she make it clear that the regulations will absolutely contain some timeline that means that we do not go back 30 years or 40 years. To do so would be preposterous. Given that what we are dealing with here is not crime but misconduct, it would be anathema to bring someone in front of a panel for a misconduct hearing 40 years after an alleged incident. I just want to get that clarified.”
“We are not in a situation like that in England and Wales. My word, legacy has become an industry in itself here, and, by the way, it is only a small group of solicitors and barristers who really seem to profit from it. <BR /> <BR />It is a fair point that what is designed to deal with police misconduct and the ability to bring back an officer in order to deal with an allegation after they have retired does should become another vehicle for legacy. We have activism in this country. When the Office of the Police Ombudsman was first established almost 30 years ago, there was no suggestion that it would even look at legacy cases from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The thought was that the Police Ombudsman would check police conduct today.”
“I will in one second. I know a police officer, whom I spoke to only yesterday, who has 40-odd years' service and who served during the Troubles. If someone were to say, "Forty years ago, I think, you were involved in collusive behaviour", and the PPS said, "There's nothing to see here" but the ombudsman said, "I want to see you brought back in front of a hearing", the Chief Constable would feel under pressure for that to happen. I just want to make sure that that cannot happen. We cannot have another front in the legacy battle. <BR /> <BR />I will take the intervention.”
“I therefore need to get reassurance that I will not open up another front for retired police officers —”
“It is important because we are talking about legislation, so let us separate a couple of issues. Where there is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against a police officer, that is unaffected by the amendment, because it is a completely separate matter. Police officers should be treated the same as anyone else. Any police officer who commits a crime should be treated like any other member of the public, except that they should get an exemplary sentence, because they have abused their uniform. I have no difficulty with saying that right is right and wrong is wrong. <BR /> <BR />The issue here is that it would be a misconduct matter, and that can be open to the ombudsman's interpretation, because the ombudsman has created an entire class of wrongdoing called "collusive behaviour".”
“Right. I will look into that again. <BR /> <BR />My second point — I will labour it — is that I am prepared to support this only on the basis of a clear assurance that the power to bring before a misconduct hearing an officer who has retired does not extend to the period of the Troubles. That is a contested space in which there is, whether we like it or not, a lack of confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the Police Ombudsman. This cannot become another extension of legacy.”
“I am talking about amendment No 68 — taking a case against someone who has left the PSNI.”
“Are we talking about amendment No 68 or the amendment about special case hearings?”
“A criminal case could not be proven, but the officer was at least brought in front of a hearing, the victims were able to give their testimony and there was a finding of guilt. That is important. I support it in principle. <BR /> <BR />I am concerned — I make no apology for it — about enabling the ombudsman to take a case against someone who has retired. Under our current legislation on police misconduct, it is only the professional standards department that can authorise an officer to be brought before a misconduct hearing. The ombudsman can recommend that that take place, but the decision is made by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”
“Those officers, because no case was taken against them, had no criminal record or record of misconduct and were able to take other jobs, while the victim or complainant was unable to get any justice. <BR /> <BR />I support, in principle, the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Police Ombudsman's being able to bring back an officer who has retired or left, to put them in front of a misconduct hearing and to have a case heard against them. It is worth saying that, in reality, when that happens in England and Wales, the ex-officer rarely turns up, so the case is heard in absentia, and there is no meaningful sanction, because they have already left. However, the victim gets, at least, a declaration that that person did x or y. I am aware of a case in England in which someone was accused of sexually grooming females.”
“It is important that we focus on and deal with this properly, because the public deserve accountability, but those who are on the front line making quick decisions deserve fairness. <BR /> <BR />Having put that context out there — it is about how we can have a swift and fair misconduct system — I will look at the amendments in this group. The first one is about taking a misconduct case after someone retires or resigns from the PSNI. In 2019, when I was the appropriate authority, I supported such a proposal. I put a paper up to the then Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, calling for that power, because that happens in England and Wales. There have been officers — I know them — who were dismissed from the PSNI or left while facing misconduct allegations.”
“I thank Miss McAllister for that insightful piece of evidence. <BR /> <BR />First, let me say this: the Police Service of Northern Ireland has made a mess of misconduct down the years. I declare an interest in that I was in the PSNI and was the appropriate authority and decision-maker to determine whether a case was taken against someone. It is important to set this in context. What often happened in the PSNI was that good officers were targeted while the bad, corrupt officer got away with things. When I first went into the professional standards department (PSD), I saw a whiteboard on which was listed the officers who were suspended. There were officers who were suspended for up to eight years on full pay — eight years at a cost of, maybe, £500,000 in pay — at the end of which there was no case.”
“The Minister of Justice mentioned victims. Can she confirm — I would appreciate a yes or no answer — whether a 13-and-a-half-year-old boy who upskirted, downbloused or inflicted grievous bodily harm on a female teacher would, should Ms Mulholland's amendment go through, be subject to criminal prosecution if the victim wishes it? Yes or no?”
“Let me just finish. <BR /> <BR />— brought to account for it. My point is this: we have a society in which an ombudsman, as in the office, has chased police officers and accused them of collusive behaviour and not brought one to book.”
“I am being really constructive here. First, it required two interventions to get the cast-iron, black letter law fact that, under the legislation, it is theoretically possible. We have now established that. I heard words such as "intent" and "not really". This is legislation. Secondly, on my disparaging comments towards the previous ombudsman, it was a High Court judge, Mr Justice Scoffield, who said that she must set aside all her previous reports and put a disclaimer on them. Thirdly, if a police officer — I do not care whether they are now 90 years of age — did something wrong and was involved in something serious during the Troubles, they should be —”
“Will the Member give way? It will be the last time.”
“Is it or is it not legally possible that a police officer could retire after 40 years' service and be brought back at the request of the ombudsman to face a case of misconduct for something that allegedly happened in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s? Is that legally possible: yes or no?”
“I am still not getting the clarity that this requires. I need to make this 100% clear. You have laid down criteria for the ombudsman. My view is that the ombudsman has been institutionally biased against the Royal Ulster Constabulary; in fact, her most recent statements have had to be set aside. If the case was an old one that related to the Troubles in which the allegation was something akin to collusive behaviour, you could, if you wanted to, almost certainly tick off those criteria and meet them. You would say that it was the most serious breach of confidence in a public officeholder; that is number 1. Number 2, would it affect public confidence? There would be those in one community who would say that it would not. Number 3, would it be sufficiently serious? Well, it potentially relates to the covering up of evidence.”
“The Member used the word "intent". Just to be absolutely clear, there are officers still in service who served during the Troubles. I could name 10 — obviously, I will not — off the top of my head. I appreciate that it is not retrospective, but, if Officer A retires or resigns after the legislation passes and is given Royal Assent, is it possible that that officer could have a case taken that relates to the Troubles? Legally possible or not? Clarify that for me, please.”
“I am glad that the Matter of the Day was accepted and that we have an opportunity to show political leadership, to appeal for calm in our communities, to wish the victim the very best recovery possible and to thank our police service, medics and members of the public who intervened. I reassure people that the police service has promised me that it will mobilise resources this evening to keep the community safe, keep tensions down and open up lines of communication with the local community. Now is the time to think about the victim and wish the police all the best. I encourage the police to be proactive, to give as much information as they can to the public and not to allow a vacuum that can be filled with disinformation.”
“It is to show solidarity with our community, to send our best wishes to the victim, to ensure that we all do what we can to promote good relations in our country and to make sure that we have the protections and laws that are required to keep our people safe.”
“As I mentioned in an interview on 'The Nolan Show' earlier, when there is such tension — there is some national practice for this — the police should be proactive in giving out as much information as they can to the community that is factual, accurate and objective. Otherwise, in a vacuum, we get disinformation. The community should know what the facts are that can be released. <BR /> <BR />It is imperative on all of us in political leadership to show calm leadership to our communities. I say to anybody across Northern Ireland today that the way to respond to such issues is never to break the law and never to incite hatred.”
“Like everyone across Northern Ireland, I was deeply shocked by the barbaric scenes that I witnessed on social media of a man clearly being horrifically injured on our streets. My first thoughts are with the victim — I pray for him and for his recovery — and with the medics who are treating him today. I thank the members of the public who evidently intervened to save that man's life and the Police Service for its swift actions. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that, at such times, there can be tensions in our community. It is right that political leadership says that we need to give the police the time and space to do their investigation, to secure evidence and to go through due process. I have already spoken today to the police at a senior level.”
“I really struggle with the characterisation that is being presented. Having seen for myself cases of vulnerable women having sex with sometimes 10 or 12 men a day, that is not a career choice that is made in a free way. Those women are victims of vile men who exploit them and use them as objects, and we need to see them as victims and people who are being exploited. The men who do that are the problem, but it is a complete mischaracterisation to portray it as a glamorous, romanticised profession. It is abuse of women in our country, and it is wrong.”
“Frankly, a repeat domestic violence perpetrator should not have access to pets. There is a huge overlap between people who are domestic violence perpetrators and people who abuse animals. We should have zero tolerance of those people, who are vile abusers of other people. <BR /> <BR />I support all the amendments.”
“I would be delighted, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I will swiftly move on to Ruby's law, which I fully support. It is well known that I am a dog lover. Pets are part of the family. In domestic violence cases and in troubled households, the pet is often an untrained therapy dog. It can be a lifeline for people. <BR /> <BR />I agree with both amendments. I am glad that the second one will be tidied up to make sure that it is fit for purpose. Ultimately, we need to get a grip on threats to harm animals and recognise that some female victims of domestic violence may not want to leave an abusive relationship, particularly when children are involved, because of their love of animals. I welcome that amendment. It should be extended to cover commercial animals. We should do a lot more about animals in domestic violence situations.”
“I do not want to praise the Member too much; that might start rumours. There are other laws, such as the one that allows a person to find out whether someone has been involved in domestic violence — is it Clare's law? — that are not proactively advertised enough by the Department of Justice. Few people whom I meet know —.”
“I agree that that Act was not proactively enforced. There was a cultural reluctance about enforcement for whatever reason. The evidential threshold turned out to be a lot lower than the PSNI had previously said. Some former police officers were recently convicted purely on the basis of text messages that were found on a phone that had been seized for something else. We should therefore take every opportunity to take out of business and put behind bars those who trade women as objects.”