Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): I welcome Detective Chief Superintendent Anthony McNally and Detective Chief Inspector Lindsay Fisher from the PSNI. It is good to have you here in person. Thank you for taking the time to see us, and thank you for your written submission. With reference to my previous job on the Policing Board, this is a word of appreciation and thanks for the work that you do in this area. Your opinion is very much valued.

We will try to tease out a number of questions with you this afternoon, but, to commence, I ask Anthony to outline any key issues that you see in relation to the Bill. We will then take questions from members.

Detective Chief Superintendent Anthony McNally (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chair, for your kind remarks and for the invitation. It is nice, as you said, to be here in person.

As you know, we made a written submission on the Bill. As we said in that submission, our role is, where possible, to prevent crime but, where it happens, to take action and bring those who are responsible to justice on behalf of the victims. The Bill helps us to do both things. First, the additional legislation is useful, because, when it becomes public knowledge and we start to deal with the offences, let us hope that it does what it is designed to do and deters those who may wish to be involved in those types of activities from committing the offences that are listed.

We all know, likewise, that sexual offences is a very challenging area in which to work and to get the justice that victims seek, so any strengthening of the legislative architecture that gives us, in simple terms, more tools in the box to deal with perpetrator behaviour is very much welcome. A number of such offences are in the Bill.

We have no particular challenges with the drafting of the Bill. Using appropriate guidance and project management akin to that which we are seeing from the Department of Justice under the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 that comes into force in February 2022, we should, in a similar structure, be able to operationalise the offences effectively.

I mentioned in the written submission that, rather than looking at the offences in isolation, they should be seen in the context of the breadth of offences and legislation that we have — the domestic abuse Act, this Bill, stalking and domestic abuse protection orders — and the other things that are in train. We highlight that because, from a policing point of view, we do not want to let victims down.

When we have the legislation, we want to work collectively with our partners and across Justice to understand the additional demands that it will bring. There will be some demand that potentially moves from other offences under which we may be trying to prosecute those matters at the minute, but there will be new demand. We want to make sure that we are appropriately resourced and financed to do that, and we continually raise the issue of how to do that with the Department.

Chair, I am more than happy to take your questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Thanks, Anthony, and thank you for your submission. We will go to one of the first comments that you made in it. It is right that delivery organisations raise the issue of resource, and you said:

It cannot be definitive, but how do we go about getting to some understanding of what that additional resource amounts to, in terms that are more than monetary? We sometimes look through a very narrow lens here, saying that it is all about the money. However, it is about the resource that you have in relation to the way in which the organisation is structured into departments. Some departments in the police will believe that their work on protection of the community is as important as that of another department. How is that being managed in the organisation, and have we any sense of what it equates to in terms of the stress, stretch and burden that will be put on the police?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: As regards demand, you are quite right: it is difficult to quantify the unknown when it comes to new offences that have, obviously, not been investigated in Northern Ireland before. What we have sought to do is to look at comparators. For example, we know that the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act broadly mirrors legislation in other parts of the UK, and that has allowed us to cross-reference. We believe, and have believed from an early stage, that the Act, for example, will see a 3% to 4% increase in demand. Where there is no comparable legislation, obviously, it is a little more difficult. We keep that under review with each piece of legislation. We try to understand what it will mean and, as efficiently and effectively as possible, ensure that our officers are trained and equipped to deal with it and get it right first time. It will be helpful, potentially retrospectively, when those offences have been in train for a period, to look backwards and see what additional demand has been created, and then look to how we reassess and reprioritise where we put our resource subsequently.

Presently, in policing, as you are quite right to highlight, not everything can be a priority. As an organisation, we undertake annually a strategic review of what we consider to be the priorities in policing. That is being done for the next financial year, as we speak. It will not be a surprise, however, that vulnerability-related offences are a priority in policing at the minute. Those are domestic abuse, child abuse and the high-end sexual offences. I fully anticipate that that will continue to be the case.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Anthony, with regard to starting to break it down into departments, you mentioned training. It is early in the cycle of the introduction of the domestic abuse legislation, but, if we take it as an example, do you think that officers are now adequately aware of, trained in and able to implement the domestic abuse legislation? It is all very well for us to make legislation and then hand it over to a number of other organisations. That, in itself, puts a huge demand on those organisations. How has that operated? How does it compare with this Bill? The Bill has a wider scope than the domestic abuse legislation, but they both try to encapsulate those serious offences that you have just highlighted that are, sadly, on the rise in society. Are you happy that the training will have that outcome?

The other issue is that some of it deals with devices, cybercrime and the internet, because that is the world where a lot of that, though not all, is going on. We have discussed with the Clerk — I intend to get the Committee's approval — that we, as a Committee, go to see the cybercrime centre and try to get a sense of how all that operates. What needs to be updated? What resource is required for equipment, and all that, to make the implementation of the legislation fit for purpose?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I will take those issues in the order that you addressed them. First, on training, you mentioned the domestic abuse Act. There are probably two aspects to training. There is training for police alone, and then training to do with how we are interoperable with our partners, which is equally important.

For our internal training, we have developed a four-stage module on domestic abuse. The first stage is specifically about the signs and symptoms of coercive control. Basically, in layman's terms: what does it look like for an officer or staff member when they see it, be that on or off duty? That then follows through to how we work with victims, support them and work with partners. It is a four-stage module. That has been designed in partnership with Women's Aid and the Men's Advisory Project.

We felt that it was really important to speak to and work with those who deal with victims, like we do, on a day-to-day basis. We support victims in a criminal justice manner, and they support them in a broader manner. By working collaboratively on that, it is really effective training, and, again, we are more than happy if Committee members wish to come and see it.

It is an interactive training module. We have probably been forced to do it that way as a result of COVID. There are benefits in that officers and staff can complete it in their own time. You can do part of it and then go back to it, so it is not taking you away from your day job for 90 minutes. That helps us to prioritise all the competing demands. It is interactive from the point of view that you have to answer and do certain tasks before you can move on to the next part. It is not like you can switch it on in the background and let it play through to the end. It is really good, and I believe that, when all four modules have been completed by all officers and staff, they will be in a really good position to support victims of domestic abuse.

What about the figures? The first module was the one that we rolled out first, obviously. The other three are now live. Just over 5,000 officers and staff have completed the first and second modules. We will, of course, look to prioritise those who are in front-line roles, but I believe that it is applicable to any officer or staff member to view them all. We will continue to use that methodology for the next series of offences. I would propose that our training style, if you wish, will follow suit with the Bill, because it has worked well. We will look to do that for this Bill and for others that follow.

The cyberworld is not my direct area of responsibility, but I know that there are challenging conversations around prioritisation. You will absolutely understand — you highlighted it, Chair — that there are not many offences nowadays that do not have a cyber element, but you have to prioritise, and that does not come without challenges. Indeed, I know that my colleagues who deal with cyber issues are in the process of rescoring their prioritisation matrix because it is a number of years old. We always look to make sure that it keeps track with current crime trends. For example, I understand that child sexual exploitation has scored slightly higher than it did a few years ago, and, as we continue to understand that offence and the behaviours behind it, we will be as proactive as we can. Hopefully, that answers those questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Your submission refers to the:

Is there more that we could do? In light of this legislation, what would help with that? The purpose of legislation, surely, is to give you, as you mentioned, the appropriate and right tools to bring someone to a conviction and to keep people safe. Where is that gap? I accept that you are not a legislator, and we are not asking you to write the legislation, but, if it were in your gift to make provisions, what would help you and your officers to carry out your duties?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: We recognise that the grooming offences as written, in terms of the ages that are in place, largely follow the 2008 Order in that it involves someone over the age of 18 committing an offence against someone under the age of 16. I suppose that we saw this one slightly differently, because operational experience has shown us that there are occasions when people under 18 have been preying, in a manner, on people under 16 and carrying out those offences. Indeed, one of our most serious investigations commenced when that individual was still a child themselves, and it carried into their adulthood. It was primarily with that in mind that we felt that you could be 17 or 16 but preying on a 10- or 11-year-old with a view to committing these offences, and we just wanted to highlight that as a point of consideration for the Committee and the Department of Justice.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): We will now go to members who have questions. First will be Rachel. Can other members please indicate? We will take them as I, hopefully, see them on the screen.

Miss Woods: Thank you very much for your submission and for coming to the Committee. I agree with your comments about resourcing. We tried to do this with the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act and put it in. Sadly, that was turned down, but I do not think that we can keep legislating for new offences without doing that. Something has to give on that. It cannot all be put down to budgets, because, as you said, it is not just about financing.

On clause 1, we have had a lot of discussion about upskirting and downblousing in relation to the purposes of sexual gratification and, obviously, then in relation to humiliation, alarm or distress. If we were to look to change that and put it in on consensual grounds only, would that make your ability to gather evidence or investigate that easier, would it put any more challenges in place or would it be best to leave it as it is to see what we are working with?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I absolutely understand the rationale behind the question. From a practical point of view, consent is something that we seek to have to prove in a number of pieces of legislation, so we are not unfamiliar with that. That is part of the evidence-gathering piece that police officers and staff will do in gathering the information that aligns to consent. I know from other submissions that there have been conversations and considerations around whether there is an alternative to that. Do you look at expanding the definition of behaviour that causes humiliation, alarm and distress to include other things? I know that behaviour taking the form of a prank has specifically been part of those conversations.

From a policing point of view, the consent and the intent perspectives are what we see as our job. Many offences cover both those perspectives — for example, possession of drugs with intent to supply and possession of firearms with intent to carry out a criminal act. Those are things that we have dealt with, so we see that following that same train is familiar territory for us and, I would argue, other criminal justice partners. Any defence, if you wish, around a lack of consent and defences around pranks are, from a policing perspective, things that we will deal with around the evidence gathering, be that in interview or through what someone may have stored on their devices, where you can very easily prove that it was not a prank because the person sent it and typed nasty comments and so on. Broadly, our position was that we were content with the Bill as written, but we totally understood why those questions were being asked.

Miss Woods: This has been brought to our attention on threats to share intimate images and image-based sexual violence. I have two questions. Operationally, is that being increasingly reported to you? Again, from an operational or practical perspective, is the PSNI receiving increased reports of the likes of deepfakes, fake porn and cyber-flashing, which the Committee might be minded to look at?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I cannot give you the exact detail of where there are images involved, but the two pieces of legislation where that may come into train are around harassment and, less so, malicious communications. It is more about the communications than the images as such. On the practicalities of those, I can see that it may be beneficial, but I can equally see particular challenges in how we may investigate those. That will be very much within the cyber arena. Again, I am not convinced that that really changes the landscape, and I think that the legislation as written probably covers most of the things, with existing offences, that we seek to utilise.

Miss Woods: Thank you. The Department has indicated that it will table amendments further down the line on a number of issues. You have covered some of them in the responses. A common theme is coming through about the rough sex defence that communication has perhaps not been great, or there has not been any sharing of what the Department intends to bring forward. Have you had any communication or engagement with the Department specifically on the rough sex defence from your policing perspective?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: Certainly, I have not, but we have had early conversations on how we will start to operationalise the Bill. I have not had a specific conversation on the rough sex defence, but I will ask Lindsay.

Detective Chief Inspector Lindsay Fisher (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Not on that. We have had early conversations on the re-profiling of the offence of non-fatal strangulation but no indications of timelines or of where that will sit.

Miss Woods: Another issue was brought up with us in the context of things that are not in the Bill. We had a conversation with a migrant support group a couple of weeks ago about legislation that had just been enacted in the Republic of Ireland relating to convictions for acts committed through no fault of the person. It related to around 600 women who were convicted for prostitution-related offences. Would that be beneficial? An Garda Síochána has welcomed that legislation. Would a similar approach in Northern Ireland be beneficial?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I have not seen that. If you do not mind, I will be happy to follow up on that in writing. I will check the Republic of Ireland's legislation and come back to you.

Miss Woods: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): I have one query before we go to Robin and then Sinéad. It has been raised a number of times, and we need to be clear, so it might be useful if, at some stage, Anthony, you could tell us where the law in Northern Ireland lies on the whole issue of telecommunications. Some of it is not devolved, and some of it can be covered by our domestic legislation, but there seems to be a gap or differential between the powers that we do and do not have. It might be helpful if that were communicated to us — excuse the pun — so that we can understand whether you have all the legal resources to be able to pursue telecommunication crimes.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: Are you referring specifically to malicious telecommunications?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Yes. Going back to Policing Board days, the stop-and-search stuff has always been done on the basis of the Communications Act. Can we use what we have, effectively, to implement this legislation, or do we still have a challenge? Do we need to be given other powers covering telecommunications?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I can certainly take a look. Malicious communication has been an offence in Northern Ireland since, I believe, 2018. It is on the increase; we have seen an increase in reports year-on-year, which is unsurprising. We are working on our outcome rate for it. It presently sits somewhere around 17% or 18%. I will take a look at that and come back to you.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Thank you.

Mr Newton: I thank Detective Chief Superintendent McNally and Lindsay for being with us today. I will pick up on one of the first points that the Chair raised. You said that the Bill is useful, and we believe you. You obviously want it to be designed to do what it is intended to do, and you do not want to let victims down — none of us wants to do that — and in your concluding remarks, you placed a fair degree of emphasis on needing resources. You also said that, when other legislation was implemented, you had done comparators with other parts of the UK and what the experience had been and so on. In relation to the legislation that is coming forward, at what stage is there a skills audit in the PSNI so that it can say, "Here is what we need to deliver what the public expect from the legislation" in order to address knowledge gaps, experience gaps or equipment gaps, or does it not happen in the organisation that a skills audit is prepared at some stage in order to ensure the smooth transition from the law being made to its being operational and, indeed, so that victims are supported?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: The best example to use in that context is the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act. That is exactly what we have done. We will have some conversations before we know that the Bill is finalised. There is no point in waiting until the very end to start, particularly if there is a short turnaround time frame. For the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, we set up a project team, led by me, to oversee the implementation of that. Effectively, it is, in the proper sense, a case of collaboration and whole-systems thinking across the PSNI, because no one area of business is unaffected by any legislation.

For example, what is the impact of the Bill on a call handler? When we have new legislation, what do they need to know differently about the first call that comes in from an individual saying that they have been coercively controlled? What does that mean, and how does that translate to those who attend those calls? How does it translate to custody? Does the custody sergeant understand that legislation? How does that translate to the files? That is where we work with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on how we engage with prosecutors on what they and we expect and all those things.

There is a system that sits above all that that looks at it, and there is a project management system that looks at that whole-systems approach. The areas within that include communications: how do we communicate with the organisation and our partners? Training is a huge part of that. As you quite rightly say, IT is important. IT, in relation to the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, has been a massively impacting factor on how we operate across the criminal justice organisations and on how we work with partner agencies. Again, a lot of those things will not just impact on us.

What do the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act or the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill mean for the multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC) arrangements for domestic abuse victims? What do they mean for the public protection arrangements for Northern Ireland? Will people be eligible to be registered under those protections? There is a project management style that looks at that whole-systems approach, and project management covers those broad themes. I can assure you that it is extensive and collaborative. We do it with all our partners when we need to reach out. Hopefully, we will show that it works when the domestic abuse offence goes live.

Mr Newton: OK. I used the expression "skills audit", which is probably too narrow, based on what you have said. Would it be right to expect that a strategic document will be produced that says, in the event of the Bill coming on line, here is exactly what we need? Is it written down in a document so that you, having responsibility in that area, know that you have all the resources, the actions and, indeed, the budget in place associated with it?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: Yes. We track all that through project management. That is why I am able to tell you today that, on a weekly basis, Lindsay checks how many people have trained on whatever module we are focusing on. We can target areas of business such as, for example, our district policing colleagues, who are the front-line attenders and call handlers. We manage that, and, from our perspective, there is a monthly briefing document — a short couple of summary pages — which is provided to the Chief Constable and his senior team to let him know where we are at. That is an opportunity to highlight any risks, as I see them, that we cannot resolve. We lift it to that level, but, thus far, I believe that we are on track with the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act.

Mr Newton: Where are you with this legislation in the process that you have just outlined?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I have engaged by email with the Department of Justice. The last exchange was two weeks ago. I should also say that the structure that I have outlined for policing is a merged structure of how we operate across agencies. There is no point in my doing it in isolation; everyone else — the courts, prisons and particularly the PPS —needs to do the same. We have an internal version of that structure for the policing aspect and an external version for how we all work together. That is led by the Department. My request to the Department is that a similar structure be put in place for the implementation of this Bill.

Mr Newton: How could the Committee help you in that process?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: You could reinforce the importance of the structure to the Department, so that we are all on the same page at the same time and, when the legislation goes live, we are all, in football parlance, match fit in order to protect those whom the legislation is designed to protect and detect those whom it is designed to detect.

Ms S Bradley: My points have mostly been covered. I will raise one issue that is still at the back of my mind. I appreciate the attendance of the Detective Chief Superintendent and the Detective Chief Inspector, and maybe they can talk about this.

I am conscious that we are putting quite a lot of legislation through that heavily involves cybercrime offences. We are already aware of the limitations of the PSNI in phone triage and all that. I am also aware of some of the types of platforms where this offence may occur. In clause 1, for example, there are the issues of upskirting, downblousing and publishing. The example — I will name the platform — could be something like Snapchat, where the evidence is no sooner up there than it has disappeared. I can see how that would be a real operational challenge for the PSNI. The Chair spoke about the powers that may or may not rest here in telecommunications. However, in the operational, day-to-day working on a case, has there been any improvement in working with some of those very large companies that — I know from working at a constituency level — are difficult to communicate with? Has there been any change in access to information or working with those companies, rather than it being totally reliant on legislation? Is any goodwill being expressed to the PSNI in gathering evidence?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: That is a very interesting question. You will have seen stuff in the media over the past few weeks about this. The number of referrals to the PSNI from the National Crime Agency (NCA) in respect of online child abuse has increased by 600% since 2013. That is an absolutely staggering figure. Obviously, it begs the question, "What do we do to prevent this?". We cannot simply arrest our way out of it. There need to be more holistic systems or a societal approach to that.

There are a number of pieces around this. The prevention space should focus on attitudes and behaviours. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation has a Stop It Now campaign, which the PSNI promoted again last year. It is aimed at anyone who is considering or feeling that they want to access such images. It provides support to try to stop them from engaging in that behaviour or, if they have done it, from reoffending or re-engaging. Lots of work and good charities are in that space.

The forthcoming online harms Bill is really what we are focused on in this area of policing locally and across the UK. The Bill, as written, allows OFSTED to fine tech companies significant sums of money for failing to deal with indecent material on the internet in an efficient way. It is primarily aimed at children. That is very welcome but, obviously, that legislation is not in place yet and is being worked through at a UK Government level.

There is no dispute in my mind that it could be stopped from being uploaded. I am sure that there is enough artificial intelligence and significantly smart software that could detect that something is just not right and should not be uploaded. That is the utopian position that, as a police officer, I want to see. However, as I understand it, thus far, the online harms Bill will very much focus on when the material is there and its being taken down promptly so that it cannot be reshared and reshared and cause the harm that we know that it does.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you. I appreciate that, Anthony. Those numbers are just staggering and, to be quite frank, disgusting. What do you extrapolate from those numbers that would be presented as a case that the likes of you would have to deal with?

There is also a goodwill piece. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do not know anything about artificial intelligence, but I am always staggered by what can be achieved if the will is there, and you said that that could be achieved. Is there any sign of a culture change where there is, for want of a better expression, more goodwill from companies and that they are starting and wanting to engage to have a positive impact in bringing cases against the perpetrators of those acts?

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: It is fair to say that part of the reason that there has been an increase in referrals is that there has been an increase in the tech companies reporting that type of crime to law enforcement. We largely depend on their telling us about it, and there has been an increase in that. That increase in reporting is part of the reason that we have seen that 600% increase in referrals. I guess that another part of it is that there was an increase in offending.

Importantly, it is a global issue. It is not local to Northern Ireland or the UK. A lot of the indecent images that people in Northern Ireland may be looking at could have been uploaded from any part of the world. Therefore, there is a need for the tech companies globally to work with law enforcement and for us locally, when it lands with us, proactively, efficiently and swiftly to take action against those who offended. We should also not lose sight of the fact that the Safeguarding Board and its online safety group and the likes of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation do fantastic work in the child environment. We need to call it out. That behaviour is not acceptable, and society really needs to focus on that.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you, Anthony.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): There are no other questions from members. Anthony, to conclude, annex A to your submission states:

Those are:

— we covered that in oral evidence today —

You obviously believe that it would be more than worthwhile including those in legislation because they would be of great benefit and value to you.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: I would certainly like to see them drafted, Chair. Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Anthony and Lindsay, thank you very much for your time with us. Thank you for your submission and your ongoing work. Sadly, the police are being contacted about many of those things 24 hours a day. Thank you for the time that you have taken to be with us. We look forward to continuing to work with you.

Detective Chief Superintendent McNally: You are welcome, Chair. Thank you, members.

Detective Chief Inspector Fisher: Thank you.