Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I welcome Detective Chief Superintendent Anthony McNally, who is the head of the public protection branch of the community safety department; and Detective Chief Inspector Lindsay Fisher from the public protection branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. You are both very welcome. Thank you for coming. The session is being recorded by Hansard. A transcript will be published in due course and uploaded to the Assembly website. I will hand over to Detective Chief Superintendent McNally, and we will follow up with some questions.

Detective Chief Superintendent Anthony McNally (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chair and members, for your time today. We have submitted our response to the stalking Bill to the Department. As per our report, we very much recognise that it is a good piece of legislation in terms of strengthening the architecture to prevent victimisation and deal with stalking offenders in Northern Ireland, whether in a domestic or non-domestic setting. We are satisfied with the construction of the Bill, save for a number of small points, which we have highlighted to Department of Justice officials in our return. Chair, would you like me to talk you through those?

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): If you would, briefly, go over your submission, yes.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: Sure. I will give you a summary. Most of the points that we wish to highlight are very much around the operationalisation of the Bill and things that we will need to know and understand when police officers look to deal with this on the ground so that we have absolute clarity of understanding. Most of our submission is based around those points. There are three broad areas that are important to highlight to the Committee that the police would like to be considered in further conversation with the Department. The first one is around the guidance that will, of course, help us to operationalise the Bill. There are similarities with the domestic abuse Bill, so we would be very keen to make sure that we have substantial guidance. The Department has committed to working on that with us, which we welcome.

The second area is training. There will be a significant training requirement for police in respect of the Bill. That, again, is similar to the domestic abuse Bill. It is important that we work collaboratively both in Justice and external to Justice to make sure that we, collectively, provide the protection that victims deserve and that the Bill is designed to deliver.

The third point is about costs. Any new legislation comes with a financial cost. Of course, as I highlighted, the overarching desire of policing is to keep people safe and put a prevention-first ethos in place. To do so, and to enable us to enact any new legislation, there will be training requirements. For example, stalking protection orders are a fantastic tool, but those things come with a financial tail. It is important that we highlight that that is important to policing. We do not want to fail by not being able to properly use the legislation due to financial constraints. That is a consideration throughout the process.

You will see that we have highlighted a minor point about clause 7. It refers to the "Chief Constable" being able to apply for orders. We need absolute clarity that that means any constable operating under the office of Chief Constable. That can be covered in the guidance or the legislation. The legislation talks about the police taking out an order if someone is resident in Northern Ireland or is intent on travelling to Northern Ireland for the purposes of stalking. However, when one considers the cyberstalking arena, what about when the victim is in Northern Ireland but the perpetrator is outside of Northern Ireland? If you applied that legislation as it is written, we would not be able to take out a stalking order or an interim one. We would welcome some discussion around how that could be progressed and how we could make sure that we provide the best safeguards for victims who are resident in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Does the Bill assist with that, or does it need to be strengthened to cover the cyberstalking issue?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I am not sure whether it is specifically around the cyberstalking issue or more about the practicalities of where orders can be taken out. The Department has committed to having a further conversation about that. It is something that we highlight to the Committee.

On clause 8, which is on the power to make orders, again, there are similarities with non-molestation orders, which can, as the Committee will know, be taken out ex parte. Effectively, the suspected offender may not be present in court, but, when the order is granted, it becomes live and is potentially outwith that individual's knowledge. We seek clarity that there is similarity in that respect. Obviously, we would welcome that the order does not have to be served on an individual for it to become live in order to better safeguard the victim. We ask that that be considered.

On clause 14, which is on notification requirements, there are some points that we would like to draw out. First, when we talk about the address, there is a comparator to the public protection arrangements where individuals may not necessarily have a permanent address, and they may reside overnight in certain locations. There are specific notification requirements around those issues where we have had some legal challenge on how those are addressed, so we ask that further consideration be given to cross-referencing those with the protection arrangements that allow us to navigate our way through difficult scenarios with people who are, perhaps, more transient in lifestyle and wish to stay away for a short period of time. It is a question of how we manage people who sit outwith their permanent address. As I said, it is an area that we have faced challenge on before.

Also in this area, we do talk about where an order is taken out in relation to notification requirements, but I suppose, again, when one considers reference to the public protection arrangements, when a sexual offences protection order is taken out, in addition to the notification requirements, there are monitoring requirements, which are managed through the agencies involved in the public protection arrangements. We have asked for clarity around what the consideration within those is. Is it the view of the Department that those will come in within the public protection arrangements, and, if so, how are we going to manage those? Again, Chair, I am sure that you and Committee members will be aware that, through amendment No 73, this has been subject to significant conversation on the UK Bill as it has been making its way through Parliament. I think that we should cross-reference that with considerations for Northern Ireland. Linked to that are the public protection arrangements and any changes to article 50, which governs the arrangements of those.

Also in respect of the orders, it is quite right and good that they mention that people may be compelled to do certain things. For example, I note, from the Hansard report of the Committee meeting of 21 January, that one of those considerations was the suggestion that someone who is subject to an order may have to undertake a health course, for example for some form of addiction. Again, that sounds like an entirely sensible approach, but the question is about operationalisation of that. From a policing point of view, if that is something that we wish to place in an order, what if that course is not available or is not available for a period of time? How do we link in with health partners and whoever administers that course to make sure that those things are addressed? Also, if someone is undertaking such a course, if they fail to continue with it or do not turn up, who is the onus on in respect of the enforcement of the order? Is it on the body that the individual is supposed to be attending to notify the police that they have not attended, or is it for the police to check?

Again, around the orders, there are some very specific operational things that I believe we need to work through in either the guidance or the legislation. As I said, from a policing point of view, we want to make sure that we can use this tool to the greatest effect to protect some of the most vulnerable people in society.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thank you. That is helpful, and I picked up on one point. Do you think that the Bill adequately covers online harassment or is there more that could be done on that? You picked up on that, and feel free to pick up on it again.

You mentioned that, with this new legislation, additional resources and so on will be required. Has there been any conversation around quantifying what the cost would be or the kind of investment that would be needed?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I think that that needs to be picked up again, and I have spoken to the Department. I have spoken to Brian Grzymek from the Department, who was here with you in January, and we are due to meet next week to discuss those things. From a policing point of view, we are aware, as you will be, that the uptake of stalking orders, for example, has, arguably, been patchy in England and Wales as people get used to them in the first year. Our estimation is that it costs somewhere around £800 an order when you add up the associated costs, but, because it is reasonably new legislation, it is difficult to really quantify the financial impact of that in totality for policing. Nonetheless, it is a conversation that needs to be scoped out.

You, quite rightly, mentioned the cyber aspect of it. Again, it is new legislation. If, for example, an offence is committed solely online and someone has been cyberstalking on two or more occasions, the requirements around the cyber infrastructure will be greatly impacted by something new. We need to try to, at least, be aware of that, if not make some quantifiable assessment of those costs and impacts, not just the financial impacts but the time impacts, because the more volume that there is in the system, the longer these things sometimes take.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I will bring members in, and I may come back in later. Colleagues might pick up on the issues.

Ms Dillon: Thank you, Anthony and Lindsay, for coming to the Committee today. The Chair has covered one of my questions on the resourcing aspect, but I want to tease that out a wee bit. If we are talking about the PSNI being responsible in a monitoring capacity, would that have further resource implications, or do you include that, Anthony, in what you said about the £800? I am thinking that you do not, but I want to clarify that. Do you want to respond to that first, Anthony, and I will then move on to the other point?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: To clarify, the monitoring requirements were not part of that consideration. That was about the administration of a stalking order, which is a specific thing. I am aware of the Committee's perspective on the monitoring requirements in the domestic abuse Act, and I imagine that you might seek to have something similar here. Yes, of course, that will lead to additional demand on policing, but, if the Committee is minded to do that, that is what we will do. However, I would be keen to have conversations with the Department about the long-term financial arrangements.

Ms Dillon: I accept that, Anthony. It is fair enough that you would expect resourcing for that. You are right that — I will not speak for others — it was very important for the Committee in its deliberations on the domestic abuse Act, and it will not be any different with the stalking legislation. It is really important, because this all feeds into how we move forward and what we should be doing differently.

The Chair has already addressed the cyber end of it to a degree, but there are practical difficulties. You gave the example of when an alleged perpetrator does not live here, but the victim does, and that person is perpetrating the stalking from another jurisdiction. How do we deal with that? You have flagged that up, but are there any examples of how that is being addressed in relation to other crimes? The simple question is this: is there a practical way to address that in the legislation? Even if it does not need to go into the legislation, how can we address it? I am looking for an answer on how we could address that, if you have one. If you do not, Anthony, that is fair enough, and we will ask the Department how it will deal with it, because we cannot have a circumstance where somebody is a victim of a perpetrator outside this jurisdiction and we just throw our hands in the air and say, "Well, we cannot do anything about it".

I am conscious that, as a result of that, the PSNI will suffer in terms of public perception. I have raised this before and will say it again: we need to make sure that the legislation is right for you as well, because if we do not give you legislation to act under, it suddenly becomes a public perception that the PSNI is not addressing people's needs, and it is very difficult to make the public understand that you do not have the legislative cover. That is our responsibility, as legislators, so I want to make sure that we get this legislation right for the victims. We will only get it right for the victims if we get it right for you, so that you can deliver and tackle those alleged perpetrators.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: Thank you. To put it in context, we know the legislation is very good in that it permits the PSNI, if someone is in Northern Ireland or is intending to travel to Northern Ireland, and that is a reasonably good caveat. One would assume that, more often than not, as evidence shows us, stalking does take place. As has been said before, it is not just high-profile media figures. Actually, a lot of stalking can be in a domestic relationship or the people will know each other. The circumstances of such a scenario are probably in the minority as opposed to the majority. However, nonetheless, we have flagged it as something we want to look at. I do not have the answer yet, but our legal teams are keen to look at that issue. I will pick the matter up in conversations with the Department next week.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Linda, you are on mute.

Ms Dillon: Sorry, I muted myself before I said thank you. Thank you, Chair, those are all my questions for now.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thanks, Linda. Sinéad Bradley?

Sinéad, we are not picking you up.

Ms S Bradley: Sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I can hear you now.

Ms S Bradley: I thank both Anthony and Lindsay. Anthony, your presentation has answered a lot of my questions. I noted the point that Linda has just raised. Earlier, it was cited that, under the legislation, a conviction can be brought exclusively on the grounds of online stalking. You, quite correctly, pointed out that the Bill is limited in its application for an order to someone who is resident in or travelling to Northern Ireland, and that is a huge contradiction in the objective of the Bill.

Linda asked a similar question to something that I wanted to ask: are there any examples in legislation or anything that you are aware of, at an operational level, where you have powers to gather information or work with other authorities to gather information? I considered the area of online fraud, and the PSNI has made great efforts to manage that crime. Is there anything in that field that might be part of the answer as to how we get over that anomaly? As Linda said, I appreciate that you might not have that information today. However, you have very ably marked up that issue for the Committee, and it is a huge gap that we have to close.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: We have looked at other things, such as the application of non-molestation orders and how they can work beyond jurisdictions. Obviously, with a land border, you are quite right that there are other examples of extra-jurisdictional powers, but we have flagged up this specific matter as something that we want to get our heads around to avoid letting victims down. Lindsay, you have had more recent conversations with the Department than I have. Are you aware of any other examples?

Detective Chief Inspector Lindsay Fisher (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Not on where we are using powers other than our cross-jurisdictional powers, as you have mentioned. It does allow us to look at collecting evidence from mainland UK, as cyberstalking can happen outside of Northern Ireland. Therefore, we would follow the normal protocols.

Ms S Bradley: Chair, can I ask another question about the piece that cited the Chief Constable? I did not fully follow that part of the briefing. Can you run over that again? You said that the legislation cites the Chief Constable, am I right in thinking that you want a broader definition?

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Anthony, you mentioned that clause 7 references the Chief Constable. Therefore, that ensures that "Chief Constable" means the PSNI as an organisation and gives any constable that power.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: Yes. It is just an "any constable" query that can be covered in the guidance.

Ms S Bradley: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I have taken a note of that. We will check to make sure that the legislation does not mean only the Chief Constable. That makes sense.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Anthony. That was useful. You have not put down many points. It seems that you are quite happy with the proposals that have been put forward for the stalking Bill. That means that you can make an easy transition to that from what you do now.

Can you explain what you do currently that is similar to this? Are there harassment laws that will morph into stalking protection orders? How do we move from what you are doing now to what is proposed?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: You are right: we have raised a small number of points. That is largely due to the fact that there was good consultation between the Department and ourselves on the Bill. We are broadly content with it.

I see it as strengthening the architecture. Where we were — where we, possibly, still are — is that harassment legislation is the primary legislation in this arena. The fact that we will have a domestic abuse legislation and stalking legislation, both with very specific offences, will do two things. It will strengthen our ability to protect victims and to deal with perpetrators, and it will provide clarity. One of the challenges that policing has faced is that, where stalking behaviours have been present and we have tried to use harassment legislation, it may not have been fit for that purpose. That is the exact reason why this legislation is required: it will provide clarity and, together with the harassment and domestic abuse legislation, it will strengthen our ability to tackle those things.

Mr Beattie: Can you think of any issues? You mentioned cost. Of course there is cost, and there are resource requirements. Do you see there being a big additional cost? Do you have the resilience to cover that? With the shortfall in budgets, is that something that you would have to flag up as being another shortfall in the offing?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: A bigger conversation about the broader legislation is required. As we know, this piece of legislation does not stand in isolation. Other things will be coming through the Committee, such as the miscellaneous provisions Bill, as it was called; I think that it recently changed its name. We should consider a number of pieces of legislation in the round, to ensure their operationalisation and to try to understand the financial aspects of them. It may be that that will be covered, as it currently is, but it is important to flag that to the Committee. The senior executive team within the PSNI will keep a watching eye on what we anticipate the costs will be.

Mr Beattie: Looking at the domestic abuse Act, this stalking Bill and the miscellaneous Bill, we can see, for example, an awful lot in those that says that the PSNI must go through training. Is it likely that getting up to speed with all of this legislation will have an effect on the whole structure of the police, including the phase 3 training for police officers?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: You are right: there is a significant training demand. Of course, there is also an in-built need for annual refresher training. You could argue that, in one sense, that is something that we would want to do anyway, to keep our officers up to speed, but there is no doubt that there will be an addition to the training environment when that becomes a legislative requirement.

Mr Beattie: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I have no more questions. There may be things that we tease out in due course, which we will want to come back to you about. I am sure that you will be happy to facilitate that. Thank you for coming to the Committee today, Anthony and Lindsay. It is much appreciated.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: No problem. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members.

Detective Chief Inspector Fisher: Thank you.