Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I welcome Geraldine Hanna, Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, and her colleague Aongus O'Keeffe, policy and research officer in the Office of the Commissioner for Victims of Crime. You are both very welcome; thank you for taking the time to be with us. We appreciate it and look forward to hearing what you have to say. I ask you to give us your general briefing, which should probably last 10 or 15 minutes, and then there will be some questions. There is always more value in questions, so, as you can appreciate, we will be eager to get to those. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. I hand over to you.

Ms Geraldine Hanna (Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime): Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the invitation to give evidence on the Justice Bill and the 2023-24 victim survey, which was carried out by my office. As the Chair said, I am joined by Aongus, who is our policy and research officer. He is here to provide some of the more specific answers that you may need in relation to the victim survey, so I will defer to him at times. With your permission, Chair, I will make a few opening remarks. All being well, I will take less than 10 minutes. Then, I will happily answer any questions that you have.

Before I talk about the Justice Bill, I will address the concern that I outlined to the Committee and the Justice Minister in my letter of 18 October. As I noted in that letter, I had been concerned about the pressure that the shortened mandate put on the Assembly's ability to progress key legislative reform. That had worried me since the Assembly was restored, and it is something that I had raised with members of the Committee individually and with the Minister and Department on a number of occasions.

The Committee's indication that the scrutiny of the first Bill — the Justice Bill — may take up to 18 months, caused me further concern and uncertainty on the potential impact of that on the two subsequent Bills that the Minister had indicated that she planned to introduce. I was also concerned as to whether the Minister would then amend her plan for the two Bills, based on the Committee's indication of around 18 months for the scrutiny of the first Bill. I felt moved to write to the Committee and the Minister, because my understanding is that the sentencing Bill and the victims and witnesses Bill will contain vital legislative changes that victims have long sought. I am talking about changes in the disclosure of third-party materials, which is something that you all know that I am passionate about; changes to better track compliance by criminal justice agencies with the Victim Charter; and important changes to provide special measures for victims of hate crime, amongst others.

I am happy to talk to you more about what, ideally, I would like to see in those Bills. None of you will be surprised to hear that I have a fairly substantial wish list. It was that concern and uncertainty that led me to write to you and the Minister. I did so in the hope of better understanding what steps might be taken to prevent any potential knock-on effects for important planned legislation. I have been really reassured by the responses that I have received. The Minister responded, indicating that she was still planning to introduce the three Bills. One of my fears was that the last Bill might be dropped or changed in some way.

The response that I received from you, Chair, as well as your comments in the Assembly, indicating that the Committee would be willing to scrutinise more than one Bill at a time, greatly reassured me. On that issue, though, I want to be really clear to you all that I strongly believe that how the Committee carries out its role is entirely a matter for the Committee. I would not, nor did I intend to, presume to tell any of you how to carry out the important task that you have in front of you. My intention was to flag what I saw as being a potential issue and better understand how that issue might be addressed.

One of the proposed changes in the victims and witnesses Bill is, as you know, the provision that will place our office on a statutory footing. I know that concern was raised at the Committee, in public session, that my wanting such legislation to progress may have presented a conflict of interest or meant that I had, in some way, stepped outside my remit. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify my position in that regard. I have been appointed to the position of commissioner designate for a three-year term. There is potential for a one-year extension, which would take me up to June 2026. At that point, as I understand it, recruitment will commence for the next commissioner designate. There is, therefore, every likelihood that I will not be in this role at the point when the legislation for the role is being considered. Let me, please, reassure the Committee and, importantly, place it on the public record that I do not see any personal conflict of interest in my wanting to see the legislative change that would benefit victims of crime and help to give the office the power that it needs to champion their voices. A key component of my role, and, I suspect, the role of any future commissioner designate, is to help scope the statutory role that is to be developed. That was identified as being a key priority for the post. As such, I believe that the progression of the legislative framework falls within the remit of my role. I will always endeavour to carry out my role in accordance with the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. I hope that that is helpful in explaining my motivation for writing to you and the Minister on that important topic and provides you with some reassurance.

I now turn my attention to the Justice Bill, as introduced. In our justice system, we need to start looking at everything through the victim's lens. That is what I have tried to do with the Bill. I will work through its Parts, talking about what I think is positive and what the Committee may wish to consider as part of its scrutiny.

Part 1, as you know, deals with the retention of biometric data. I understand that that is to keep us in line with the Supreme Court's ruling. I welcome the gradation element, so that data will be held for longer for more serious crimes, including sexual crimes. That is important because those who commit sexual crimes often escalate their offences and commit further crimes. The Committee may wish to consider what happens to the biometric data of someone who initially engages with the police as a suspect but, on further investigation, is believed to be a victim. Sadly, we often see such examples in cases of domestic abuse, where a victim faces false allegations being laid against them to cover up their abuser's crime. Obviously, I am keen to ensure that any such victims do not have their data held unnecessarily. The Committee may also wish to consider the merit of the proposed biometric commissioner role having included in its remit a requirement to consider the views of, and impacts on, victims of crime.

Part 2 deals with children's bail. Broadly, it is welcome that the Bill intends to provide clarity on when bail is granted to children. However, the Committee should consider a way for victims' views to be considered as part of bail decisions. Their views can provide valuable insights into the potential risk that is posed by the accused and ensure that bail conditions are tailored to effectively protect them from further harm or intimidation. For what it is worth, I strongly believe that that should also be the case for bail decisions that relate to adults, but that is not covered by the legislation. There is, of course, an issue when it comes to children being denied bail because there is no safe place to which they can go. It is not right that they should go back to custody just because there is not a safe place for them. That is quite a Dickensian approach that benefits no one. To make sure that there is somewhere safe for them to go, there needs to be much better working between our health and justice systems. You will hear that a lot from me on a lot of issues. We cannot work in silos on any of this.

Part 3 deals with the use of live links, giving police officers the ability to carry out interviews with suspects. Through a victim lens, there may be some benefit from that in, potentially, helping to potentially speed up the process. However, the real benefit that I can see is in the amendments that the Minister has indicated she plans to introduce, which I will touch on later.

Part 4 deals with the administration of justice. I welcome clause 25, which closes the gap in the law that could see defendants not having to face criminal proceedings on murder or manslaughter charges, even where the judge is not satisfied that the related section 5 offence — the lesser offence of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die — should be no billed.

Clause 28 is an important step in the reform of our legal aid system. We can all agree that our current model is unsustainable, and it is good to see movements towards long overdue reform. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI), the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all flagged that in the past. What victims need is a legal aid system that provides fair remuneration of the legal profession and is sustainable.

I would like to talk about some of the amendments that the Minister plans to table at Consideration Stage. It is unfortunate that those amendments are not ready for you to scrutinise. It would have been much better if they had been, to give you the time to go through them and make sure that there are no unforeseen issues.

I am particularly interested in the provisions to facilitate the wider use of live links in courts and tribunals, thereby allowing the cessation of reliance on similar provisions that are in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which the Minister mentioned at Second Stage. That is to be welcomed in helping to move things along and give victims and witnesses flexibility. Placing the use of live links on a firmer statutory footing is positive. Like I said, I would much rather we were looking at the text of the amendments now. However, it is better that they are made to the Bill than not at all. If any Committee members, or their MLA colleagues, wish to discuss that with me at a later stage, when more information has been provided by the Department, I am more than happy to facilitate that. That concludes my remarks on the Justice Bill.

The victim survey ran from September 2023 to December 2023 and was extended to March 2024. There were 166 respondents, and we are able to provide a breakdown, if you would like one, of some of the demographic information. First, let me say how grateful I am to all the victims who responded to the survey. It is not easy to recall those experiences, which can often be traumatic. The victims who responded should have our thanks for their selfless efforts to improve our justice system.

I am not an academic, but, as many an academic would, I will address some of the limitations of the survey. With 166 respondents, there was not a huge sample. Anyone who surveys victims of crime will tell you how challenging it can be to get people to come forward. Research tells us that that challenge can be further compounded if the person has experienced trauma. However, 166 is not an insignificant sample, and the feedback that we have received from those victims very much reflects what my office hears from victims and support organisations and what, I suspect, you, at times, hear from your constituents. Let me say this: we captured data that nobody else has captured. For example, none of the other victim surveys dealt with victims of sexual or domestic crime. There is a reason for that, of course, but it is important to know that the survey gives us a quantitative insight that we just did not have before, and we would be foolish not to use it to inform public policy.

It is impossible to look at the results and see them as anything short of an SOS from victims. Sadly, the results are not surprising. There is not a single part of our criminal justice system that comes across well.

That having been said, there is not a single part of our criminal justice system that did not receive some positive feedback from victims. Police officers were praised for their compassion, prosecutors were praised for their professionalism and judges were acknowledged for making the experience of victims less traumatic through their actions. There is no doubt, however, that the delivery of services across our criminal justice system is inconsistent. The Victims' Commissioner in England recently published the results of its survey. There was shock at the fact that only 27% of respondents were confident that the criminal justice system was effective. In Northern Ireland, the corresponding figure is 7%. In England, 38% of respondents were confident that the criminal justice system is fair — in Northern Ireland, the figure is only 8%.

As you are aware, the findings of our survey have been sent to key stakeholders in our justice system, including the Committee. My hope is that the survey will take place annually and that we can use it to understand the issues that victims of crime face and inform policies and procedures to improve their experiences.

Thank you for your time. I am happy to take any questions that you may have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much, Geraldine. I have a couple of things to say, and then I will outline how the session will work and what issues we will raise with you.

You offered to discuss the content of the other Bills. We are a very engaged Committee, and we struggle to fit into our time the subjects we have to deal with at present. If you do not mind, we will hold that offer until nearer the time that we are looking at the other Bills. There will be time for those discussions but not today.

Thank you for your reassurances about your letter. We were surprised, and not thrilled, to receive it. You will appreciate that the Department's view on the number of amendments that it is choosing to table at Consideration Stage is the Department's view — the Committee's view is different. From our perspective, we have half a Bill, with six major policy proposals still to come. That is where we are. We want to make sure that we fulfil our role and responsibility as best we may and as quickly as we can. As we do not know the scale of what is to come, we need to afford ourselves some time. It may well be that we report earlier, and if we can, we certainly will. It is not our intention to delay for delay's sake: that does not serve anybody's interests and it certainly does not serve ours. It is not preferable for the Committee to consider more than one Bill at a time, but, as we have indicated, we are more than prepared to do that. We intend to move forward collaboratively and work as best we can. We, too, live by the Nolan principles. You can understand why the Committee was somewhat taken aback by your letter, but I am glad that you have been reassured. We have been reassured by your remarks today, and hopefully we can let all of that drop and move on.

The bulk of our questions are on the survey, but no doubt we will touch on the Bill. Doug has some issues with the distinctions between the surveys that have been conducted. Connie's issue ties into that, because it is on domestic violence and violence against women and girls. Deirdre has some questions on the parameters of the Bill and the statutory footing of your office, and she wants to address your letter. Justin has some questions on silo working. I have a few questions on confidence in the police, confidence in the criminal justice system and restorative justice. I also have a query about victims' personal statements. That is what is going to come at you, if that is all right. We will try to theme proceedings as best we can. I want to deal with the correspondence issue first. I will go to Deirdre on that one and then move to Doug to raise his issues on the survey.

Miss Hargey: Thanks for the response. Were you asked or encouraged by anyone to write to the Committee?

Ms Hanna: No. I restate that my fear when I heard, during public session of a Committee meeting, that the scrutiny may take 18 months was, "What does that mean for the third Bill? Will the second Bill change in light of that?". My intention was to understand the impact and see whether we could mitigate that.

Miss Hargey: There is concern that we do not have the full Bill. Did you communicate that to the Minister in your correspondence?

Ms Hanna: I sent the Minister and the Committee the same letter.

Miss Hargey: No bother. That did not indicate that you would have preferred your part of the legislation to have been included in the first Justice Bill. That has not been communicated to the Minister.

Ms Hanna: I communicated that to the Department at the very first indication that there would be three Bills. At that stage, I think that the third Bill was going to be a hate crime and victims' Bill, so I indicated my concern to the Department. I think that I spoke to some members of the Committee as well about wanting to have the statutory provision in the first Bill, but I know that the Committee then asked the Justice Minister about that. It is in the third Bill.

Miss Hargey: One of the key priorities of the Bill is to improve services for victims and survivors. Do you believe that the Bill, given the provisions that you have now, serves that overall policy aim, or are there any gaps or omissions that we need to look at?

Ms Hanna: In the current Justice Bill?

Miss Hargey: Yes.

Ms Hanna: The key issues when it comes to what we can really do to improve things for victims and witnesses are linked to the second and third Bills. In any Bill, we assert that we want to put victims and witnesses more at the centre of our system. We should try to honour that in every piece of legislation, and in every policy and practice. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I wonder about the granting of bail. Obviously, the specific focus is on child bail, but the same issue applies to adult bail. I would really like to see victims' voices and views being considered by police when they look at bail. That would give victims a sense of reassurance about their importance in the system, and, at times, they have valuable information to help to inform potential bail conditions. That is about public protection. It is probably more likely to impact on the adults being granted bail, but it is about children as well. There should be that read-across. I would really like to see that victims' piece in there.

Miss Hargey: Joanne, do you want me to cover all my questions?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): No, I will come back to you, Deirdre.

Mr Beattie: Geraldine, thank you. Every time that you speak to us, we get an awful lot of information from you. Our last meeting was really interesting.

I like surveys. They provide good outputs. However, you have the victims' survey, which you conduct, and the Northern Ireland victim and witness survey (NIVAWS) by the DOJ. It seems as though there is a degree of repetition. You said that yours offers something that others do not. I have already had words with the Minister about the Department's survey because it does not deal with domestic violence or sexual crimes, which I find staggering. Do you see differences in the findings of the two surveys that mean that they need to stand alone, or could they become one survey?

Ms Hanna: They could become one survey. I am keen to have discussions with the Department about that. From what I understand, the NIVAWS was procured for a certain term. My understanding is that the most recent survey was conducted at the end of that term. If the Department wants to replicate the NIVAWS, it will be working from a blank page, so I am keen that we explore how our survey and the Department's could come together. We need to survey domestic and sexual violence victims and those who have experienced a fatality. That has not been done because of sensitivity, and the fear that you could trigger and traumatise, but the research does not really bear that out. Of course, some people will be triggered, and, of course, it is difficult. It can be traumatic to recall those experiences, but that is about having sensitivity in how you frame the survey. Having some of the funding that is associated with NIVAWS to undertake something like that might even change our approach.

Mr Aongus O’Keeffe (Office of the Commissioner for Victims of Crime): Similarly, over 40% of our survey respondents were victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse, which indicates that there are victims who want to inform and share their experiences to improve the system. The NIVAWS does not do that. We are speaking to the Department about the future of its survey and how we can collaborate to look at a comprehensive survey for Northern Ireland that looks at all victims.

Mr Beattie: Is that likely to happen sooner rather than later? The fundamental problem is that I have two surveys, and do not know which one to turn to to say, "Here's the survey that's accurate, and here's the one that's not". They give very different views. I do not get the sensitivity piece, if I am really honest, because I know people who are triggered by burglaries and other things. There needs to be sensitivity, but is there a likelihood that a comprehensive survey will happen sooner rather than later?

Ms Hanna: Our survey for this year is open. That is a little plug for the survey. If anyone knows a victim who would like to complete it, it is on our website. There will be another victim survey report from us next year. The NIVAWS one had been happening, I think, only every two years. By the time we are looking at our survey, after the 2024-25 one, we might have reached a united position to have a comprehensive survey of all victims of crime. Hopefully, you will not have to live with it for much longer than one more survey. It is about understanding the distinctions in who has responded, and that, in the shorter team, is unfortunately [Inaudible.]

Mr Beattie: The information is really useful. Do not get me wrong: I am sitting with the two of them in front of me, and the information is really useful. It is just that they are conflicting in some places.

Mr O’Keeffe: To add to your confusion, Doug, there are other satisfaction surveys. The PSNI does its own satisfaction survey, albeit a more condensed survey, and the Policing Board does a policing plan survey. However, we think that there is value in having all that data. Ours is the most comprehensive survey in that it covers all victims of crime. The others do not, and there is a need for collaboration in ensuring that we have useful data that covers all victims.

Mr Beattie: There is a cost to repetition as well, and an output of that repetition is not always what we need. That is a useful one for the Minister to look at.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am going to bring Connie in on a similar theme.

Ms Egan: Thanks, Chair, and thank you, Geraldine and Aongus, for coming today. I really appreciate it.

I want to talk about domestic and sexual violence. I think you said that your survey is the only one that captures that. That is important, but I welcome what you said to Doug about how you are going towards one comprehensive survey. I want to ask about victims' experiences that may not be captured. Research commissioned by Refuge found that it takes seven attempts before a woman will leave a domestic violence relationship, and that only 18·9% of women who experience partner abuse will report it to the police. Could you capture that in further surveys or do you have experience of that through comments that you received when conducting the 2023-24 survey?

Ms Hanna: When conducting the 2023-24 survey, I do not think that that came up very much in the free text response about leaving or at what point the victims called the police. When I engage with victims, they often talk about the length of time that they were in a relationship before they picked up the phone, so that is a challenge.

With regard to the future survey, one thing that is helpful about our survey is that it includes victims who do not report the crime to the police. Not every respondent will have gone through the criminal justice system, which is why you see the volume of responses to certain questions drop when the survey gets to a certain point. The majority of respondents to our most recent survey did, if I recall correctly, go through the criminal justice system, but the survey is open to victims who have not reported the crime. Certainly, a more comprehensive and better-resourced survey would be able to target more victims of unreported crime. However, that might need a more qualitative type of approach to understand the barriers to reporting, particularly if someone never got as far as reporting. There is a trust issue there as well, and that is the really hard-to-reach group.

Ms Egan: That is helpful because it brings me to the next thing that I wanted to ask about, which is capturing people who pull out of the system and out of reporting, be that engagement with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) or with the PSNI. That happens a lot with domestic or sexual abuse, where the victim may be traumatised and not want to go through that process. It can happen, for various reasons, in any crime. How do you capture that, and how is it reflected in this survey, or how might it be reflected in future surveys?

Mr O’Keeffe: Geri mentioned the drop-out rate. Following the opening questions, we moved to specific questions about each of the criminal justice agencies. Response rates dropped significantly after the section on the police. All our respondents had reported their crime to the police, or it had been reported to the police. The overall response rate was 166, but, by the time that it got to the questions on their experience of the court or the trial, it was down to 34 responses. That is how many of those responding were likely to have got as far as court: less than a quarter.

Ms Hanna: One of my "big three Ds", which you have no doubt have heard me talk about, is data. At the police stage, when investigations do not proceed because the victim no longer supports a prosecution, we record that information. I am asking the police and the PPS to include the reasons for that in their data, so that, rather than just ticking a box to say that the case has been dropped, we would have more detailed reasons recorded for why the victim withdrew, which may have been issues with delay or intimidation. Improvements can be made to systems across the board that do not necessarily need to be picked up through an annual survey; they could be picked up as part of our regular engagement with victims at the point that they choose to withdraw.

Ms Egan: Thank you. There is clearly something that we need to address, given that there is that level of drop-out.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Justin, you have some stuff around silo working?

Mr McNulty: Thanks for your evidence, Geraldine. In your correspondence, you said that agencies in the Department of Justice are fragmented and operate in silos and that that is an impediment to the good operation of the Department. I asked the Minister about that this week, and she said that she did not believe there to be any fragmentation or silo working in the Department of Justice. She said that it was more of an IT issue. Do you concur with that?

Ms Hanna: I see silo working continuing to raise its head across all Departments. I am not sure that I see that in different departments of the Department of Justice, but I think that there are silos within the criminal justice system. It goes back to the issue of communication and the ability of agencies to share information appropriately so that victims do not have to repeat their story and restate their needs. I will give the example of the remote evidence centres, which I support. Where the Public Prosecution Service is aware that a child who is giving evidence in the remote evidence centre is vulnerable and has made an application for special measures, which have been granted by the judge, the police will normally have identified that at an early stage and then the Public Prosecution Service will have made the application, and that has been granted. The child's mummy may also be giving evidence, but we have not had the foresight to identify that the mum needs special measures in place as well. What happens is that without special measures for mum, and because mum is afraid — understandably, she does not want to be separated from her child — the child may come to the court to give evidence via a live link, and that causes unnecessary distress.

That may not be the best example, Justin, but it demonstrates that lack of information-sharing and consideration across each part of the piece. If an application for special measures is being made for the child, surely, at that stage, we should think, "Does anyone else need it?". That is about the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the courts liaising with each other. That does not cost money. It is just about a little bit of scrutiny, thinking and foresight. I am not sure whether I have answered your question, Justin, but there certainly are instances of that across the criminal justice system, though within the Department itself, I do not have specific examples of where different departments are working on different pieces.

This is my feedback to the Justice Department — to be fair, it is specific to it. We have said that we will put victims and witnesses more at the centre of our justice system. That obligation is not just on our victims and witnesses branch in the Department of Justice. It should be a consideration for every branch in the Department of Justice. Sometimes, it is not as apparent as a priority as I believe that it should be.

Mr O’Keeffe: It came up in our victim survey. Some victims raised the issue of the police and the PPS not communicating or collaborating with each other. It is perceived that institutions are working in isolation rather than in more collaborative ways for the benefit of victims.

Mr McNulty: For clarity, that is not an IT issue.

Ms Hanna: IT might help with some of it, but I do not believe that it is an IT issue. It is about talking and phones and people: communication.

Mr McNulty: Have you had the opportunity to meet the Minister of Justice since publishing the findings of the victim survey, Geraldine? How do you expect, and hope, the findings will feed into the work of the Department?

Ms Hanna: From memory, the Minister has written to us on the victim survey. We have not met specifically about the survey since then. We have been at some events together, but I have not had a discussion on the survey's findings. The response was that the Department found it interesting and would use it to help to inform its thinking. How do I think it should be taken forward? It is one piece of the picture. It helps by adding a piece of information that we do not get from other surveys. It needs to be seen in that context.

Mr McNulty: Geraldine, you are a fearless, fierce advocate for victims. You speak truth to power, and I congratulate you and your team on the message in a bottle campaign, which was hugely impactful. I will read the message in a bottle that I received from one victim of crime. The gentleman said:

That is a stark, startling message from a victim of crime.

Geraldine, keep going. I wish you well. I find it almost bizarre that the legislation around the position that you fulfil will not be in place until after your contract ends. That is a bizarre situation, and I hope that, when the time comes, you reapply and are considered for the position again. Geraldine, thanks a million.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have a couple of questions about the survey, but Deirdre has one first.

Miss Hargey: My question is about two of the stats that stood out to me. First, 63% or two thirds of respondents felt that their cases were not thoroughly investigated by the PSNI. Have you identified any themes, patterns or specific areas where they feel they have not been investigated? Secondly, 77% felt that they had not been given enough support through the court process. I recently had a call from a girl in relation to a sexual offence case in court. All of a sudden, the defendant left the building. She was not told anything about what happened, and it turned out that the case was suspended. She was not told that, and she was left in a panic. I wonder whether that is an emergent theme from the data that you have collected. I know that you have impressed on us how useful the data that we collect can be. In your view, is the data being used in the right way to improve service delivery, and what more can be done to ensure that that happens? You touched on some of that around collaboration and the cultural shift to working more collaboratively across the whole justice family, but are there other things that could and should be done? Sorry, that was probably four questions.

Ms Hanna: I will try to answer them in the order that they were asked. Tell me if I have not answered them. If there is anything that you want to come in with, Aongus, just say.

On the quality of investigation, we do not have a lot of free text as to what the issues were per se. Maybe you are about to correct me, Aongus. Go ahead.

Mr O’Keeffe: There has been quite a bit of feedback, I suppose, as to the quality of investigation. It comes up a lot —.

Ms Hanna: Not in the survey.

Mr O’Keeffe: In the survey, as well as in general engagement with victims. However, at the outset, I must say that we have also had a lot of positive feedback on the experience of victims with the PSNI. It comes up quite a lot in intimidation and harassment cases, where repeated incidents are happening and victims are reporting incidents, but they are not being fully investigated. Victims have had to provide their own evidence, and their evidence has not been recognised or considered. We experience that a lot, particularly with victims of harassment and intimidation, which can also include stalking. That is an area that certainly could be improved from a victim perspective.

Ms Hanna: With things like CCTV, there is nearly a sense that victims feel that they have to investigate their own crimes. This comes out —.

Miss Hargey: A lot of the recent hate crime stuff over the summer, as well.

Ms Hanna: Exactly. That comes up quite a lot when we meet victims. They will talk about, "They did not investigate it properly". Then they will say how they went to local bars, or neighbours on the street, who have door-camera footage, and they have sought to get that. Sometimes victims feel dismissed by officers as to whether or how useful that footage is. That whole quality piece —.

Miss Hargey: Even explaining the process, I suppose, that it may not be good enough evidence.

Ms Hanna: Yes. Of course, people want to see a real, robust response. TV has an impact. Sometimes, when you watch television, you see so much forensic dusting on crime programmes that people expect that level of investigation. Particularly American television sets quite a high bar in what we think can be done with forensics and what can be captured. However, there is definitely that sense from victims. It comes up regularly that they do not feel that there has been enough action taken to scrutinise the crime. That tends to be in harassment, domestic abuse cases and hate crimes.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

Ms Hanna: The other point was support through the court process. That comes up quite regularly. We have a witness service at court, and, in this role, a lot of the feedback that I get from victims mirrors some of the feedback that I heard when I worked in Victim Support. Not very often, but on too many occasions, the court forgets that the victim or witness is sitting up in the waiting room. They hear that the officer is away home and the prosecutor has left at 4.30 pm and nobody has told the victim or witness. Obviously, the witness service does not have people in every court all the time. If the volunteers have not been told, or no one comes up to discharge the victim or witness, they are sometimes left feeling very dismayed and alarmed that people have gone. When you have a member of security staff saying, "That court closed an hour and half ago", it does not place the victim at the centre of the process or help them to feel valued, particularly if the court has been adjourned and the victim has to come back.

The other question was whether we are using the data appropriately — I think there might have been another one, but I am missing it. We need to capture more data about victims. I know that I talk about that quite a lot. Could we be using the data better? Yes. I will circle back to the example that I gave to Justin. We know that a mother is giving evidence and a child is giving evidence from a remote evidence centre. That piece of information should be used to take action. Sometimes I think that we ask something because a system requires us to ask it, but we do not then apply the critical thinking as to the decision that it should then inform. That can sometimes happen with risk assessments as well. We will do the risk assessment, but do we truly understand what that is telling us about the risk and what action we therefore need to take on the back of it? It is not quite as specific as quantitative data, but some of that is qualitative data that should influence better decision-making and planning, if that makes sense.

Miss Hargey: That is useful. Thanks very much.

Ms Hanna: Was there another question? Did I miss one?

Miss Hargey: No, I think that was it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Ciara, do you have something?

Ms Ferguson: Just to key on that, the report says that the bigger evidence base and more data that you have, you get a picture of what is happening. It is more about that proactive stuff: the witnesses who have competed that survey are the experts who have walked the walk right through that process, so I would love to hear — maybe I have missed it — their recommendations, as individuals, on what could improve the service. We are all in it together. I am sure that everyone, at all levels, wants to see improvements. That is a key question. Was it asked? Are there top issues, not from you having to evaluate all the responses, but what have been the most common denominators or issues that have been brought up across the individuals that they want to see change?

Mr O’Keeffe: I will refer back to the Victim Charter, which underpins the rights of victims. That is where a lot of the gaps are, based on the responses that we received to the survey. There is a Victim Charter in place under a statutory footing, but it is not being monitored. Compliance with the charter is not being monitored, so that goes back to the data piece. It is earmarked for the third Bill, which is why Geri and victims are so keen to see it. There is ongoing work with the Department to try to improve the data that is being collected on victims and their experiences of the justice journey. The key is ensuring that the rights of victims are being delivered and that there is a way of monitoring where the failings are and where people are not having their rights met and addressing and improving the system from that perspective.

Ms Ferguson: You do not ask the specific questions in your own survey either. I know that that is a charter and that you would like all the organisations to adhere to it and monitor and track progress and satisfaction against it. That is fine, and that is going to take resources. However, in this survey, if there was an opportunity to ask victims, "If you were to change or improve anything in your experience, what would be your top three things?", or something like that, that would be useful.

Ms Hanna: Ciara, we asked about police, prosecution and courts. We asked people to rank a range of issues, such as their top 10 or top 11, and said, "How would you frame this?". When it came to, "Based on your experience of reporting a crime to the police, what is the most important thing to you?", it was about having the matter dealt with efficiently, having the crime fully investigated and being treated fairly and with respect by the police. In the area of prosecution, you are into similar responses such as being believed, having the matter dealt with efficiently, the defendant being prosecuted and the victim being treated fairly and with respect. The themes that you hear coming out through the survey are around that investigative response, the effectiveness of that, and dignity and respect. That piece is not about money. That is about engagement and personnel. There are so many people across the justice system who are doing a really great job in really pressured circumstances, so in no way should this be seen as a slight against everybody, but the fact that some people are doing it well shows that it is possible. It is possible in our current system and it can happen, but it is not consistent, and that is the key.

Is there anything else?

Mr O’Keeffe: No. That came across in the free text as well, that certain officers are brilliant and that different parts of the system are doing well at times, but not consistently. The ultimate measure is consistent delivery of a quality of service that gives victims their dignity.

Ms Hanna: That is the challenge, because, if you have a great officer and you are then let down by the prosecutor, a victim's experience of the system will be negative. Everybody is relying on everybody doing their bit. It goes back to Justin's point about silo working: all the agencies need to work very tightly together.

Ms Ferguson: It is disappointing that there is such a low level of awareness of the charter. What can be done to raise awareness? Everybody has a responsibility to hold people to account and to check and try to improve, but if you are not even aware of what you should expect throughout the justice system, it is hard, on reflection, to go, "I shouldn't have felt like that or been treated like that", or whatever.

Ms Hanna: Exactly.

Ms Ferguson: That is grand. Thank you.

Ms Hanna: I think that it was 70% who had not heard of the charter. That reflects what Criminal Justice Inspection found when it did its survey in 2020. Since we did our survey in February, we have partnered with the Department on a campaign about the Victim Charter. We hope that it has reached people. One reason why I want to do such a survey annually is to see whether we are making a dent in that. We would like to think that the more that we shout about it, the more people will understand its being there.

Mr O’Keeffe: I do not know whether it is public awareness, but victims are supposed to be informed about the charter at their first engagement with the criminal justice system, whether that is with the police or whoever else. There is an onus and responsibility there too.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have a couple of questions, and we will then move on to the Bill. With regard to the business of 63% of crime not being properly investigated by the PSNI and the various other stats that do not look great for the system in general, have your figures been shared with the police, the Policing Board, the PPS, the Lady Chief Justice etc?

Ms Hanna: Yes. When you all got the letter in the bottle, the agency leads got it too. The message in a bottle went to them along with the survey. I have a meeting scheduled with Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson to talk about the survey findings. The Policing Board is aware of them. I am nearly sure that we sent the message to it too.

Mr O’Keeffe: Yes.

Ms Hanna: We have shared it with all the key criminal justice stakeholders.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. In light of that — I do not know whether it is the board or the police's own survey — the confidence levels in the PSNI have always been high — in the eighties, by and large. To be honest, I have always been sceptical about that finding, and I have raised concerns about it, because I have never believed that that is true. I appreciate the distinction here that this is people who are victims of crime and the other one is a general populace survey, but what do you make of that? There is such a clear distinction between your findings from victims and what people's perceptions are. Are the right questions being asked?

Ms Hanna: It is probably about the different purposes of the two surveys. The Policing Board survey — if I am thinking of the right one — is of the general population, as you said. Of the respondents to that survey, 9% were victims of crime, and they did not include victims of domestic and sexual violence. I am not surprised by the distinction between that and our survey. When it comes to sexual violence in particular, the stats show us that those cases take the longest to get through our system. You will no doubt have heard the word "delay" and about efforts to tackle that at many of your meetings. The longer a victim stays in our system, the more likely that we are to let them down. It is more likely that we will not keep them updated, that there will be unnecessary adjournments and that they will not be communicated with. It is victims of the more serious types of crimes who respond to our survey, so the results are indicative of their experience of the criminal justice system being more harrowing. We all need to actively work on that, but the distinction between the surveys explains what comes back from them, and I am not surprised.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. Thank you. I will work my way through the report with you. I ask you to turn to the section on restorative justice. It is interesting that 52% of respondents reported that they did not wish to pursue a restorative justice option. Did they give any indication as to why not?

Ms Hanna: I do not think so.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It would be helpful to have some understanding to go behind the data.

Ms Hanna: That is quantitative survey data, so —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There is no option for that.

Ms Hanna: — it does not go into that level of information.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): From your conversations with victims, are you able to bestow any information about that?

Ms Hanna: When it comes to restorative practice in general, I am extremely supportive of the value that it can bring to victims of crime where they choose to engage with it. There are two distinct pieces for me. We have the diversionary route, where there is an element of community restorative justice, and there is also the potential use of restorative justice alongside or after taking the criminal justice route.

From my experience of my previous role in Victim Support, the people whom I spoke to who had the most positive experience of restorative practice and justice were victims of the most serious crimes. They were victims who had lost a family member through dangerous driving or victims of sexual violence. They were victims who, on the face of it, you would think would not want that. This was in addition to the criminal justice process, and a lot of the reasons why people welcomed it were that that process provided them with the opportunity to have their voices heard, to understand more and to feel significantly part of the process. You will understand that, with the restorative practice, the two parties are coming together. It is to discuss the harm that was caused; it is not about the law that has been broken and whether it has met the threshold.

Particularly in the case of the woman whose daughter had been killed in the car, she found out nothing about what had happened that night, and, significantly, her big issue was that she thought that the person who was driving the car and who was then convicted of death by dangerous driving had run off and that her daughter had died alone. He was able to tell her in that meeting that he was holding her hand when she took her last breath. She had been a friend of his, and that gave that mother a level of reassurance and comfort. It does not bring her back — of course it does not — but it gave her a level of reassurance and comfort that no criminal justice system, no matter how wonderfully it deals with a case from a criminal justice perspective, would ever deliver.

There is so much value in restorative justice. My criticism of the Department to date on it is that, although we are hailed worldwide for our work on youth restorative justice and we have done a lot of amazing work on community-based restorative justice, particularly coming out of the conflict, when it comes to restorative practice around adults and alongside our criminal justice process, it is too much driven from the offender lens. For things to happen, the probation worker or the prison officer working with the person who has caused the harm has to identify this and then try to approach the victim. I would like to see much more of a victim-led restorative piece, and that example that I have just given you happened because that mother contacted Victim Support and said that she wanted to meet that guy. She did not know what restorative justice was; she never used the words. She learned a lot about it and is now a strong advocate of it. The governor of Magilligan prison, where that person was in the care of the Prison Service, was a restorative justice supporter and advocate and had trained people in it, and that is how that happened. If she had not asked — that journey is just not straight.

We have made some progress, and I know that Victim Support has a Just Talk service. We do not have the resources for what is needed in our systems response. I certainly want to ensure that, if any victim wants to explore a restorative justice route — let us be clear that they have to want to; it is not for everybody — there is an appropriate response and trained people who are there to help to facilitate that, all to the relevant standards. Obviously, that has to be done by qualified, trained professionals who know how to risk-assess and manage the complexity of the process.

Mr O’Keeffe: I will take a note, Joanne, about having that as an add-on in future surveys to get more data on why victims might not want to explore that because, of those who responded, fewer than half were keen to explore it and more than half were not. That is something to think about for us.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you, Aongus. That is helpful.

Next is people's overall experiences of the criminal justice system. It shows a very poor reaction to the criminal justice system. Again, were you able to dig down underneath that to establish why, or is it the things that you referred to previously regarding delay, treatment and so on? Is there anything else that stuck out in those responses?

Mr O’Keeffe: Yes. I have different free-text quotes from victims that refer to a lot of those issues: "The investigation took too long"; "They treated me with respect and kindness"; "Did not get many updates about what was happening"; "Found out most of it through social media" — that is a recurring issue and theme — and:

Again, it is communication and not being aware that a case was going ahead. This is a quote in the report:

Another commented:

There are a whole range of issues cropping up in victims' experiences. It is not everyone and, as we have said, different victims have issues with different parts of the system. That colours their whole experience, even if they had a good experience with one part of the system.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, I understand that.

Ms Hanna: The other lens to think of when looking at this is the broad piece at the end on overall confidence in the system. Many of those people did not even get as far as court because there was a decision not to prosecute. They felt let down, I would imagine.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is a really nice segue on to my next issue. One thing that I noted in the report that was interesting to me was that 80% of those crimes did not involve a hate element. Sometimes, that can be a dominant factor in some crime. It is interesting that, in those responses, it was not. It is also interesting that 50% of people did not understand the sentence. That issue has been raised with us, indeed, by the Lady Chief Justice herself. There is work to be done around the transparency of sentencing and the understanding of sentencing and how it works, not just for victims but, actually, for the general public in order to have confidence in the system. It was interesting to note that. There was a specific reference to how people responded to whether their victim personal statement (VPS) had been taken into account in sentencing and whether the judge referenced it at the time of sentencing. Just for my own understanding, to what extent are those statements taken into account?

Ms Hanna: The victim personal statement — forgive me if I am telling you things that you already know — is considered only where there has been a finding or plea of guilt and where the person has had the opportunity and availed themselves of it to complete the sentence. It will focus particularly on the views of victims around the impact of the crime. The judge will consider it, but they will consider the impact alongside the aggravating and mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): So it is borne in mind, but I suppose that people take a bit of exception when it is not referenced in sentencing. At that point, maybe people do not understand that, "Yes, it has been taken on board but we are not referencing it". Is that the issue?

Ms Hanna: That is part of it. There is more work that we can do to promote the option of the victim personal statement. The victim personal statement report has really highlighted the need for better training of agencies and raised a significant issue about the time at which it is offered, because some victims are not getting any opportunity to make that statement, which means that the judge does not get to see it. That is an issue particularly in the Magistrates' Court, where we move much more swiftly to sentencing generally.

Another issue with the victim personal statement is how much reference is made to it in the judge's sentencing remarks. That is one of the reasons why I want to see free access to sentencing remarks for victims. Often, they are in the court. Sometimes they may not attend, but, if they are in the court, they are not always able to retain everything — it is quite a traumatic process — so have not been able to reflect on that afterwards. Where a judge refers to their statement, that can help to validate that it has actually been taken into consideration. However, what we heard from some judges was a little bit of uncertainty about whether to refer to it specifically or read out sections of it. One recommendation from the victim personal statement report was that we have a better template that clearly indicates to judges what the victim's views are, because some judges are afraid that, if they say too much of what the victim says, they are going to —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It could re-traumatise the victim.

Ms Hanna: Yes, and breach their privacy, to a degree.

Mr O’Keeffe: Currently, as Geraldine says, what a judge decides to use from a VPS that is submitted is discretionary. It is entirely at the judge's discretion. There is no option here, as you will know, to read out your own victim personal statement in open court, as is the case in other jurisdictions. That is also one of our recommendations. Not all victims will want to do that, but it is currently not an option, and it is entirely down to the judge to decide what, if anything, they will use in their sentencing remarks from that victim personal statement. We heard from many victims who felt that it should not be the judge's decision — "The crime happened to me". There may be a smaller percentage of victims who wish to directly read out their statement and want the offender to hear that victim personal statement and the impact that the offender had on them. There were a number of recommendations in that report —.

Ms Hanna: You will not be surprised to know that I would like the sentencing Bill to include the option for people to be able to read their statement aloud in court if they choose to do so. That is one of the things on that list.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does it happen in the States? Some of the states, anyway.

Ms Hanna: It happens in England.

Mr O’Keeffe: It happens in England and Wales, and down South as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I want to ask you a question that is a crossover between the survey and the Bill. It is about false allegations. There are circumstances where it is very clear that a crime has been committed. If you have had your window broken or your car stolen, those are very clear circumstances where a crime has been committed. However, for some of the more serious crimes, it is not always clear, and it is a very difficult situation. I want to preface my question by saying that, while some of those crimes are the worst thing that could happen to you, it is also the worst thing that could happen to you if you have been falsely accused. With regard to whom you consider to be a victim, Geraldine, how do you strike the balance? At what point is someone a victim, and at what point are they a complainant?

I am going to ask a different question about the Bill, but first I want to expand my knowledge of your thought process. At the point at which a person is deemed to be not guilty, or an accusation is not proven or an allegation is proven to be false, is that person who was suspected or charged considered to be a victim?

Ms Hanna: I will try to —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am really conscious that these are very sensitive areas for people. On each side of that coin, lives can be destroyed. I am always wrestling with how to protect everybody's right to fairness. Justice is blind, so how do we strike the balance? As the commissioner designate, who do you consider to be a victim?

Ms Hanna: I took my definition of "victim" from the Victim Charter, which is enshrined in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2015. That is anyone who has experienced a crime, regardless of whether it is even reported to the police. Now, I appreciate the sensitivities here. If someone is falsely accused, that can have a traumatic impact on their life. However, I think that we have the balance right in how we approach it. I will say a little bit more about my thinking, and that might trigger another question. When someone comes forward and reports a crime to the police, the police have to approach that with an investigative mindset and an open mind — and so they should — and then build their evidence. At the initial report stage, there could be conflicting allegations as to who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. That probably happens more frequently than we think. You will get it in bars — fights in a pub. Who started it? Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator?

As I said in my opening remarks, it is very often the case in domestic abuse incidents that false allegations muddy the waters. That is why it is so important for our police force to have that open mind and investigative mindset, to respond appropriately to anyone who is claiming to be a victim and to treat them with dignity and respect, Even if that person goes on, in the course of the investigation, to become a suspect, I expect that they should be treated with dignity and respect. I do not think that we are placing anything on someone that does not read across; everybody should be treated fairly and with an open mind. When we get to the court environment, we very clearly make the distinction. That can cause real harm to victims, but the distinction is clearly made because of the issue that you just raised, Chair. In the court environment, we talk about injured parties or complainants. We do not talk about victims. Even the witness support services that exist in all courts are called witness services. The person who, beforehand, would very often have been referred to as the victim is seen in the court environment as the witness. I think that we have the balance right. Obviously, the prosecution has already considered whether the case meets the test for prosecution; if not, it would not be there. If it has met that test, you are in the court environment, and the jury is there to find out whether there is strong enough evidence to believe that the person accused, who is standing in the dock, is guilty of an offence beyond reasonable doubt.

That takes you to the question of what happens if they are found not guilty. At that point, even given the not-guilty verdict, I would not say that the person who made the allegations is no longer a victim. Our justice system is about laws. That in no way undermines the fact that someone is innocent in a court of law until proven guilty, and, if they are not proven guilty, they have not been convicted. Sometimes, however, that does not mean that, unfortunately, the crime has not happened. It may be that somebody else did it, or that it just did not pass that threshold.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It could not be proven.

Ms Hanna: Yes.

What I think is important in that regard — it is important that I make this point — is that, where someone wrongly and deliberately falsely accuses somebody, that is a crime, and the accused is a victim. That very rarely comes through our courts, but it has a profound impact on those who are falsely accused. It is right that such deliberate false allegations made against someone are a criminal offence and should be investigated and prosecuted as such. If you are the person who is the victim of that false allegation and someone is being prosecuted for that, regardless of whether they are found guilty of it or not, I still feel that, if the evidence has been strong enough to get them to the court arena, I will still consider you a victim.

Does that help you any, or has it just confused you more? There are different views.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is important to tease that out.

Ms Hanna: The language is really important. Unfortunately, for victims or crime in particular, if we were to take any steps to try to change that wording up until the court environment, that would cause harm. You can be a victim and never enter the justice system. A court of law works within very strict parameters. A long time ago — I will reveal my age — when I worked in the witness service in London, a judge dismissed a case in which a very young child was the primary witness. The case did not proceed because the judge did not believe that that child was a reliable witness. He said that, although it is called a criminal justice system, it is, if anything, more like a criminal legal system. He said, "We are here to look at the law, and we must operate within the law". The law meant that he did not believe that that witness was credible. That was hard for us to swallow. It was hard for the family to swallow. Ultimately, the justice system is all about the law. That is where you have blind justice, but I will always go with what victims have told me, and I will believe them at the point of how they present to me. However, the court environment works to legal standards, and, obviously, the judgement is based on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is just that, after that, there could be another victim.

Ms Hanna: Yes. If there has been a false allegation, there should be —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): False allegations are not always proven, though. You said that they are not always investigated either. That can leave people in a very difficult space.

Ms Hanna: I like to think that, if there is evidence of false allegations, they will be investigated.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is very difficult to prove.

Ms Hanna: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am dealing with a domestic case that is like the one to which you referred.

I will move on to the Bill. Normally, I go last, but because of the nature of it, I am going to go first, if members are OK with that. I want to talk to you about biometric retention. Geraldine, you mentioned suspects becoming victims and false allegations and things being turned around, and you cited the example of domestic violence. Beyond domestic violence, but just in the realm, I have been a bit conscious — we are just starting to look at some of these issues — of the fact that, just because somebody is not convicted, that does not mean that they did not commit the crime; it is just that it is too hard to prove. We have all seen examples of that. My fear about the three-year issue, where your DNA can be retained for a three-year period, and if you have not been convicted in that time, it is no longer held, is that it essentially gives law enforcement three years to make or not make its case, and a lot can happen in that time or otherwise. Have victims expressed concern that that window may not be sufficient to allow the threshold to be met and the case to be proven? Do they have any concerns about that three-year time frame?

Ms Hanna: That issue has never come across my desk in this role or in my previous role. I think that that is because, from a victim's perspective, it is such an operational, behind-the-scenes detail that it probably would never come up that we do not hold that information any more. It is not something that anyone has spoken to me specifically about. From my perspective, what we do not want to do is shut down a potential prosecution. There is a balance to be struck. I know that there are issues around civil liberties, but, for me, there are also issues around being able to effectively prosecute offending. It is about getting that right.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I think so too. It is one of the things that has been playing over in my head, because we have all seen circumstances in which, to cite the well-exercised phrase, the dogs in the street know, and everybody can know, but proving it is another ball game. To lose DNA after three years, when another couple might make a difference — I do not know. I am wrestling with the time frame for that. I wondered whether you had a view on it, but that is fair enough.

Ms Hanna: I would look to what police officers say. Do they think that it is going to —? I suspect that they will be able to say how many cases would not have been —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is certainly something that we will raise with them. I just wondered, from the victims' perspective, whether they had expressed any concern about that time frame. If they have not done so, that is fair enough. It may come to you in due course. If it does, I would appreciate hearing back from you.

Ms Hanna: Definitely.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. Deirdre has a question on the Bill.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. It is on biometric data. Obviously, the retention periods are being reviewed because of European Court judgements, and that is why the Minister is moving on it, which is good. Do you believe that the proposed new periods are compatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or do you have other views? In particular, the retention of young people's data is what I am concerned about, and I know that the Children's Commissioner raised it. I just wanted to get your view on that one.

You talked about the creation of a biometrics commissioner. Obviously, that is not in the Bill. It only sets out to create the office; the detail will come after. I had concerns even around how we could strengthen it with a right of appeal. Are there things that we could put in? What is your view on the creation of a commissioner?

There might have been another question; I might find it before you finish.

Ms Hanna: The article 8 issue has not come up, as I said to the Chair, through anybody raising issues or concerns.

I would probably defer to a human rights analysis of that. I appreciate that this move has been on the back of a Supreme Court judgement, so the law is saying what the law says in that regard.

On the biometrics commissioner role, as with any decision-making role, it is important to have a right of appeal in order for the decision to be reviewed. The decision may stand, but it is helpful for people to have an opportunity to appeal. I would like that commissioner role, where possible, to include consideration of any biometric data that might be captured on victims of crime and the appropriateness of that, and maybe they could issue guidance or check in on that.

Miss Hargey: It would be useful to get more information on that, if you have further views on what that would look like. Is it working anywhere else? We are trying to assess what a commissioner's office would cost, so it would be good if you could provide further information on that for comparison.

The Human Rights Commission is coming in next. In its paper, it recommends:

Do you support that recommendation, and have you seen any of the scoping that the commission has done, particularly from a victim's point of view?

Ms Hanna: I have not seen any of it, Deirdre, but I would probably support any scrutiny or analysis of this by the commission. It is such an important issue and there are a lot of competing rights, so it is important that we get it right.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Members, does anybody else have anything more on the Bill? Doubtless, if anything pressing arises in the course of our consideration of the Bill, we can bring it to Geraldine and Aongus.

Miss Hargey: This is not about the Bill. You touched on further legislation looking at the scope and permanency of your office. Your scope at the minute is within the justice family, which is similar, I suppose, to that of the Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales. Do you see that scope widening? If so, to where, potentially?

Ms Hanna: We were having a discussion earlier about silos. Victims do not operate in departmental silos. Victims should be at the forefront of a lot of Departments. The key Departments are probably Health, because of health and social services, and Education. Interestingly, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner's remit in England and Wales extends as far as that. When the role is in statute, it should have a remit to go beyond criminal justice to all other agencies, particularly when we look at things such as relationships and sexuality education in schools, Operation Encompass and how much the mental health needs of victims plays in. The Health and Justice Committees had a joint meeting, so it is not lost on this Committee how important that interface is.

Yesterday, I met a victim of sexual assault. She would really like to see CCTV inside taxis — private hire vehicles — and that falls to the Department for Infrastructure. There is the issue of lighting when we think of safe streets and violence against women and girls. Victims' needs are broad, and the response to victims should be broad, so I would like the role to be broader than just justice.

Miss Hargey: Are you aware of other commissioners who have a broader role?

Ms Hanna: The role of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales is certainly broader.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Geraldine and Aongus, thank you very much. We appreciate your time today. The session has been very useful. I am sure that, if we wish to follow up with you as we progress through the Bill, you will be fine with that.