Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I welcome Julie Wilson, deputy director, victim support and judiciary division in the Department of Justice; Nigel Bloomer, from the Department's Gillen review implementation team; and Claire Campbell, from the Department's victims and witnesses and Gillen policy branch. I invite you to give your presentation, and then we will throw it open for questions.

Ms Julie Wilson (Department of Justice): Thanks for this opportunity to brief you on progress on implementing the Gillen review. I will take a wee bit of time to highlight key developments and focus on their impact. The 2020 implementation plan set out a five-year programme for implementation, and there has been good progress against that. However, there have also been challenges, including budget constraints and uncertainties. COVID has had an impact, and there were two periods when we were without Ministers. Those challenges have affected our ability to deliver fully within that five-year programme. As such, the Minister has agreed that the programme's lifespan be extended until the end of the current mandate.

I mentioned budget constraints and uncertainties. Most of the review's recommendations result in new, recurring costs, so, in implementing them, we need to be sure that we not only have funding in our budget for this year but that future funding will follow. Clearly, that is an issue that officials across the whole system are grappling with, but, in our work on Gillen, we have had to take decisions on the work that we will prioritise within available and known resources. That is being done collectively by the multi-agency programme board and agreed with the Minister. In doing that, we have been informed by a range of factors. Broadly, however, our approach has been about how best we can meet the needs of victims and where we can lever the most positive changes from within available resources.

As the written paper that we provided to you sets out, we do not think that reporting on the number of completed recommendations is the best way to gauge progress. Not all recommendations are created equally: they differ in complexity and significance and in their impacts on victims. For that reason, we have started to shift our focus on to what is different and who is better off. In some cases, we are still reporting progress in terms of outputs: what we have we done. However, we have developed a comprehensive performance framework that sets out measures and indicators that will, over time, allow us to report on outcomes so that we can be clearer about the impact in terms of who is better off. We are already beginning to see some of those outcomes.

We know that victims of sexual offences can be re-traumatised as they progress through the criminal justice system. They can fear that their personal lives will be put on display and that their integrity will be called into question. The Gillen review highlighted a whole range of issues and inhibitors that adds to victim trauma and contributes to under-reporting and high attrition rates. The review also recognised the need to ensure that any new measures do not interfere with the defendant's article 6 rights. Nonetheless, it made clear that the system had to improve how it protects the needs of victims and complainants.

In practical terms, what is different now? We know that the justice system can be disorientating and difficult to understand. In response to that, complainants in sexual offence cases are now able to access new supports. The domestic and sexual abuse advocacy service helps victims to navigate criminal justice processes, whilst the sexual offences legal adviser (SOLA) scheme helps to empower complainants by providing free legal advice. The SOLA scheme has helped almost 2,000 complainants to date, and their feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. It has increased their confidence in the justice system and improved their understanding of how the system works. Importantly, in many cases, it has encouraged complainants to remain engaged with justice processes.

We plan to build on that service, first, by establishing equivalent support for child victims. That service is expected to launch early next year. Secondly, we aim to legislate to clarify complainants' rights to pretrial third-party legal representation. That would allow SOLAs to represent them to the court in order to object to the disclosure of their private material or introduction of their previous sexual history.

As well as that, many victims have said that one of the most stressful aspects of their criminal justice experience was standing up in a courtroom to give evidence. We have been working to reduce that trauma. New legislative provisions are now in place to protect anonymity and to exclude members of the public from the courtroom during serious sexual offence trials. As you know, remote evidence centres (RECs) have been established in Belfast and Craigavon in order to reduce trauma by providing a less intimidating and secure venue away from the courthouse where complainants can provide evidence and will not encounter the defendant or their supporters on the day of the trial.

We have been doing focused work to promote the RECs, which has led to an over 600% increase in bookings so far this year. That is not just as a result of promotion — some IT changes have increased automation — but there has been a really significant increase in bookings compared with 2023. The Gillen review anticipated that the RECs would increase victim confidence in the justice system and help to address high attrition rates. Whilst it is still really early days, it is, nonetheless, noteworthy that, in this calendar year up to 1 November, the conviction rate for completed trials where the witness had opted to use one of the RECs is 92%. Almost half of those convictions were by guilty plea without the need for the victim to give oral evidence at the trial.

The PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) have been leading on work to improve the operation of the disclosure process. Whilst procedural improvements can seem detached from the victim experience, in reality, those are making a really significant difference, particularly in helping to reduce delay. Under the disclosure improvement plan, training has been delivered to prosecutors and police officers, and new file standards have been agreed. I will give you an example of those file standards. In 2020, the volume of prosecution files being returned to the PSNI as a result of their failing requirements was almost 78%. In 2024, so far, that figure is 11%. Those new file standards have had a really significant impact, and that helps to reduce delay, which, in turn, has a big impact on victims.

Further measures on disclosure are planned, and you will be aware that we are consulting on legislative proposals to regulate the disclosure process. Those would enhance protections relating to the disclosure of private information in serious sexual offence cases, including around requests for and use of third-party materials such as medical records and counselling notes.

I have touched on delay. The Gillen review highlighted that delays are a major source of stress, which also contributes to high attrition rates. You will be aware that significant work is under way — under separate programme arrangements as part of the Gillen recommendations — to reduce unnecessary delays in the criminal justice system. In particular, I wanted to touch on the abolition of oral evidence during committal proceedings. That has already been introduced, and it is improving not only the efficiency of the process but, crucially, the experience of complainants, who are now required to give evidence only at the Crown Court trial, whereas they previously had to give evidence at the committal proceedings.

Separate work through a judge-led under-13s protocol is also reducing delays in cases involving young children. Again, that helps to reduce re-traumatisation and allows children to start their recovery journey sooner. That protocol operates in Belfast and Antrim Crown Courts and is delivering really positive results, including a significant reduction in the average time taken between reporting the crime and the court disposal in those cases that qualify. The criminal justice organisations that are participating in the judge-led protocol have agreed to seek to expedite similar cases involving witnesses aged under 16 across all court divisions, albeit that will be done without having the same hard targets in place for time frames as apply under the formal under-13s protocol.

Wider work is also improving the experience of child complainants, including dedicated child-friendly REC facilities, the imminent launch of the child SOLAs that I mentioned and work to improve achieving best evidence (ABE). ABE interview training has been improved with input from registered intermediaries, child psychologists and members of the legal profession. ABE interview suites have been refurbished with children's toys, and props are available where required. A pilot ABE cadre that was run in the Southern Trust area has proved beneficial. However, the further extension and roll-out of that programme will need additional funding and resources.

We are still working on other measures for child complainants, including work to pilot and test pre-recorded cross-examination in cases involving young children. We will need additional funding to progress that, but it is not contingent only on funding. We need to address and resolve some operational issues that relate to the under-13s protocol before we layer a pre-recorded cross-examination pilot on top of that. As you know, the Gillen review also highlighted the benefits of a wrap-around approach for children, such as the Icelandic Barnahus model. We continue to work with partners across Health, Justice and the community and voluntary sector to scope options to introduce a Barnahus-type model for Northern Ireland with a view to identifying costed recommendations early next year.

Other work streams are also designed to deliver cultural and organisational change to benefit victims. Those include the development and roll-out of a trauma-informed training framework for front-line professionals across the criminal justice system, which is intended to enhance the understanding, skills and sensitivity of people in various roles in the justice system who might be working with victims of sexual crime. Much of the work on the training framework has been progressed, and a key challenge for us will be that, although we can measure how much is being done, we want to measure what the impact of that will be. Therefore, work is under way on a performance framework for that piece of work.

Separately, in partnership with the Lady Chief Justice's office and the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS), we recently published guidance for jurors setting out their legal responsibilities, including in the use of social media during and after trials. All sworn jurors are required to read that prior to the commencement of the trial, and posters have been produced and are in all courthouses.

At a societal level, we have been working with the PSNI and the Executive Office to develop and deliver a campaign to tackle some of the underpinning behaviours and attitudes that can fuel sexual offending and violence against women and girls and gender-based violence more widely. It is a police-led campaign, but we anticipate that it is likely to launch early in the new year.

Clearly, a lot more work needs to be done to realise the full vision that Sir John Gillen set out in his review report I have tried to focus my remarks on the work streams where we are already beginning to see the outcomes for victims and that are already directly improving the experience of complainants. The written paper that we provided to you sets out a lot more detail on those and some of the next steps that we need to take.

I hope that that has been helpful, and we are happy to take and try to answer questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Julie, thanks very much. Is there anything that Claire or Nigel wants to add at this point? No. OK, thank you. Members, please indicate if you have a question.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for your report, Julie, and for the update. I thank you, Nigel and Claire for coming today. The gateway review recommended that the drafting of the remaining legislation continue, and you are aware of the legislation that is currently proposed in this mandate. I would like some clarity on the main outstanding areas of legislation that you noted and that need to happen to implement the recommendations. Which of those legislative provisions will be introduced in the current implementation period, given the proposal to extend it, and what will happen to those that remain outstanding?

Ms Wilson: I will get Claire and Nigel to keep me right here. I mentioned some of the legislation that we are consulting on, including that on clarifying the right for third-party legal representation. That would allow us to expand the role of SOLAs. In addition, policy work is ongoing on consent, and we hope to be in a position to include proposals on consent before the end of this mandate. There were other recommendations around non-jury trials and some around judicial powers. Again, we will progress the policy working on those. It is unlikely that we will be able to deliver that legislation within this legislative programme, partly because of capacity issues and partly because some of the issues are particularly complex. Also, some of the recommendations are around judicial directions, and there are other non-Gillen pieces of work that also relate to judicial direction. I think that the Department wants to look at those collectively as a whole. Another part of the Department leads on that, so I am not over the detail, but Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) had made some recommendations on jury directions. It makes sense to look at all of those similar recommendations together, so I think that that is unlikely to be included in legislation in this mandate. The other thing that we are beginning to look at is early guilty pleas. We are beginning to progress policy work around that. Is there anything else?

Mr Nigel Bloomer (Department of Justice): There are a few recommendations around fee structures, particularly for sexual offences. They will, hopefully, be part of Judge Burgess's review of criminal fees. We hope to see that review soon. Judge Burgess was liaising with Lord Justice Gillen on his recommendations, so some work on that is required.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): We have a briefing on part of that after this session.

Ms Ferguson: Are you introducing any legislation? Of all of those areas that you mentioned, will any be brought to the Committee in this mandate?

Ms Wilson: We are working towards proposals on consent being introduced and the measures around third-party legal representation. Whilst it was not strictly a Gillen recommendation, what is relevant are the proposals that we are consulting on in relation to the disclosure regime.

Ms Ferguson: You mentioned that you are doing work on consent. Can you provide more detail? What work is ongoing in preparation for the legislation and consultation?

Ms Wilson: It is at the policy development stage, so the issues are being worked through. The Department wants to progress that, but a capacity issue has meant that it has not been worked through fully at this point. However, the intention is to work on that with a view to including it a victim and witness Bill, which is where we see that sitting.

Ms Ferguson: Are there plans to remedy the capacity issue to enable you to progress that work?

Ms Wilson: It is all about prioritising and balancing the priorities of that business area in order to be able to do that.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming in today. There is a lot in that. I am interested to know how you work with other Departments. There is a recommendation on education, so I would like to know how you work with the Department of Education. You mentioned the Power to Change campaign, which will launch next year. How does that fit in with other pieces of work that the Executive are doing, such as the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls but also the domestic and sexual abuse strategy? How will you make sure that that work is cohesive and that you can work together to achieve joint aims?

Ms Wilson: I will take your second question first. You are absolutely right that the Power to Change campaign cuts across not only the objectives in the Gillen review but the ending violence against women and girls and the domestic and sexual abuse strategies. It is being developed with that in mind. It has been a PSNI lead, but the Executive Office and the Department of Justice have been working collaboratively. I chair the strategic delivery board for the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, so I am plugged into that work and can make sure that those alignments are there. We are represented on the Executive Office's structures around ending violence against women and girls, and the Executive Office is represented in our work on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, so there are those internal contacts. We are making sure that we have the right contacts and that we communicate regularly, and we are working regularly with the Executive Office.

The other Department that we work with closely on all these issues is Health. There is huge crossover with Health on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy and on Barnahus. The Department of Health co-chairs the Barnahus working group, so there is close working. On education, I will to turn to Nigel for the detail, but there has been a cross-departmental and cross-sectoral education working group.

Mr Bloomer: Whilst relationships and sexuality education (RSE) is led by the Department of Education, we have a Gillen education and awareness group on which over 30 groups are represented. The Department of Education is represented along with the likes of Nexus, Victim Support, the local universities and a whole range of groups. The members of the group have an opportunity to speak to Education representatives and give their views on the direction in which they see RSE going. Those views are then fed into the Education representatives on the group. As you probably know, Education has just completed consulting on RSE, and the group fed into that. There is a close and active relationship with the Department of Education on RSE.

Ms Wilson: Even on RSE, when you look at the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls, you see that there is a massive read-across, and those interdependencies are recognised. The report of the Gillen review was published before there was such a focus on ending violence against women and girls, but both are really relevant. What we are doing on the basis of the Gillen review will deliver outcomes against that strategy, and the strategic framework will deliver outcomes that the Gillen review envisaged. The idea is that they are mutually reinforcing, and, in particular, that respect agenda comes through in RSE education.

Ms Egan: I will follow up on that. Will you talk a bit more about how often the Gillen implementation education and awareness group meets? The paper references only the changes made by Chris Heaton-Harris, which were about abortion and contraception, not consent or challenging rape myths. How much progress has that group made? Does it meet regularly? What kind of outcomes are we seeing from it?

Mr Bloomer: We try to meet quarterly. Obviously, with such a large group, it is difficult to hold meetings that everyone can attend. The group provides a forum for all those organisations to provide input directly to the Department of Education, including from a Gillen perspective. There are no specific Gillen recommendations on RSE, but Sir John said in the report that he wished to see consistency and uniformity. That has certainly come across in the views of the education and awareness group. Whenever possible, we try to meet quarterly.

Ms Wilson: Ultimately, what is done in RSE is a matter for the Department of Education. In addition to that work, the DOJ has worked with the police around rape myths. We have also funded Victim Support and the NSPCC to produce a booklet on young people and crime. The campaign that I mentioned will have a first phase, which will be at a very public level. The intention is for there to be further work and opportunities to work in school and youth settings, as well as in other settings that are not specifically for children and young people, to draw out what that campaign means for different groups across society.

Ms Egan: Thank you. That is really important. A lot of us want to be in that prevention space. The "consistent" and uniform messaging on RSE that is spoken about in the Gillen report is crucial to that.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for your presentation. On the basis of what you presented, I agree that significant progress has been made, especially on remote evidence centres and the SOLA scheme.

First, how many recommendations are yet to be implemented, and what has been the effect of having a low estimated budget from the outset? How has that impacted on your work?

Secondly, has the non-implementation of any legislative changes hindered the implementation of the Gillen review? Have those impacts been severe, or can they be worked through?

Finally, what impact has the Gillen review had on sexual offences and repeat sexual offences thus far? Is data being collated on any successes to inform future benchmarking as opposed to looking back at the past?

Ms Wilson: My maths is really bad, so I apologise in advance. We said that 77% of recommendations are fully or partially completed. That leaves 58 recommendations: 195 out of 253 recommendations are fully or partially completed. The partially completed recommendations include things such as the remote evidence centres and the point to which we have taken the SOLA scheme. It is delivering huge benefits, but the full vision has not been implemented.

We include the partially completed recommendations because they are important and are already delivering significant change.

Some legislative changes have not been made, and I have set those out. Fully delivering the SOLA scheme would involve sexual offences legal advisers being able to represent complainants to the court at the pre-trial stage in order to help them to object to the introduction of their personal material or previous sexual history. We have not been able to introduce that yet, because legislation will be required to clarify the right to third-party legal representation. That is one impact, but we plan to legislate for that by the end of the mandate. The legislation on consent will be about clarifying and strengthening the law and putting it beyond doubt. We also plan to do that by the end of the mandate. In approaching and prioritising the work streams, we focused on where the biggest impact would be in benefiting victims.

You asked about the impact on sexual offending. It is probably too soon to say, because some of the innovations are very new. For example, we can see that, when someone opts to use a remote evidence centre, there is a high conviction rate, but it is very early days, and we need to see the impact over time on offending.

You asked about baselining. We have started to baseline attrition rates, which is important. We have not had those before. Nigel has been leading a piece of research to establish a baseline for attrition in serious sexual offence cases and to look at the reasons behind that. We can make professional judgements about the reasons for attrition in cases, but the research is about getting the data and using that as a baseline to see whether, over time, overall attrition rates drop. One of the key objectives of the Gillen review was to address those. That piece of research is due to report next year. It should give us a baseline, and then we can track the impact over time. We want to see the attrition rates going down. All the measures that we have put in place have been about supporting people to stay in the system and taking the trauma out of the system so that it is less difficult and harrowing for people to stay.

A lot of what you asked about is work in progress. Did you ask about funding?

Mr Bradley: What was the impact of the initial budget? From the outset, it was set low, and what was the impact of that on your work going forward?

Ms Wilson: The initial budget was based on a strategic outline case. We looked at what we needed to do to get the work started. It very clearly and explicitly did not take account of the cost of delivering a lot of the measures, because we had not done the work to establish the costs. In some cases, we have not completed that work and are still looking at costs. For example, on the pre-recorded cross examination pilot, we need to do some further work to look at the cost. If we were to roll out the under-13s protocol and make that standard, with those targets, we would need to define what that would cost. There is still some work to be done, and there are still some question marks around cost. Nigel is doing work to develop an up-to-date outline business case (OBC), which will show us where we are, what we have and where the gaps are.

One of the big challenges in all of that work has been about recurring costs. Very little in the Gillen review is a one-off cost; most things are about putting in place something that will have a recurring financial tail. That means that, if we are going to set up a scheme, we are looking at not just whether we have the money to do it in the here and now but whether we will have the money to sustain it. It is about looking at sustainability. We have been progressing work in the context of prioritising the best things that we can do to deliver the most improvements for victims with the money that we know that we have or the money that we believe that we are going to get.

I hope that that helps to answer your question.

Mr Bradley: It does. I am happy that you are about to set a more realistic budget requirement. You have done significant work so far, so, well done. Thanks for the presentation.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, Julie, Nigel and Claire, for your evidence session and for the serious amount of work that you have already done. Thank you for your efforts.

To follow up on and to further probe what Maurice talked about, what metrics, evidence base and supporting narratives are used to monitor progress against objectives? Fundamental to that, how many of the Gillen review's 253 recommendations have been implemented, and how many have not been?

Ms Wilson: Of the 253 recommendations, 195 have been either fully or partially implemented: 168 have been fully implemented, and 26 have been partially implemented. On metrics, we have developed a performance framework for the programme, some of which we need to look at over time. We need to start gathering the data against that performance framework and to see where that goes over time. The Gillen review is a really significant programme of reform. Reform takes time to not just introduce but turn the curve on things. It will be really important to watch how we deliver against that performance framework over the next two, three and five years and see what the data shows. We are happy to share that performance framework with the Committee, if that would be helpful.

Mr McNulty: Yes. I would be interested in seeing that, for sure.

What is the likelihood of the Barnahus model's being introduced in the North, and what would be the likely time frame for such an introduction?

Ms Wilson: We are looking, within the programme parameters of the Gillen programme, to scope out what a Barnahus-type model for Northern Ireland would be and to develop costed recommendations. I think that the delivery of that would need a separate programme. Claire, do you want to say a wee bit more?

Ms Claire Campbell (Department of Justice): Sure. Barnahus, as Julie said earlier, is a joint priority for the Justice and Health Departments because it is seen as incorporating all aspects of a child's experience when they are a victim of sexual crime. We work very closely. Over the past year, we have been assessing how far we are away from Barnahus and where current services meet the Barnahus standard. We have done a lot of work across all aspects of the child's journey to see where we are. That benchmarking process showed us where we already meet some of those standards, and we do already meet some of them. The remote evidence centres are Barnahus compliant, without a doubt, because they are child-focused and make it easier for a child to give evidence. There are also things such as the child SOLAs that we are going to implement and the children's independent sexual violence advocate service. Those are all Barnahus compliant.

There are gaps, however, some of which we know about already, such as the delay not just in the justice journey but in getting access for a child to emergency therapeutic services as part of the health side of a Barnahus model. Other gaps include data: we do not have the overarching picture of a child's experience from the beginning to end on either the health side or the justice side. We need to develop those.

It has shown us where we need to be in order to come forward with costed, feasible options that are based on the progress that we have already made on all those elements and ensuring that it is geographically compliant. It is all very well to have good examples in certain areas, but we need to ensure that children across Northern Ireland have access to the same high standards. We have done a lot of work. Hopefully, the next stage will be to come together with costed options, sharing those with stakeholders and bringing them forward to Ministers.

Ms Wilson: When we were progressing work against the programme, we took a conscious decision to look at developing things such as SOLAs and remote evidence centres and to put in place those strands before looking at a model to weave them together. We wanted to have the services in place first. I think that we are now at the point where we can ask what the model looks like.

Ms Campbell: There is scope for the model to be different from one in which everything is under one roof. Through our study visits, we saw that there are very few examples in which everything happens under one roof. There is even evidence to say that that is not the best model and that you need to target it and have different, flexible options that are based on what is appropriate for each jurisdiction. Hopefully that helps.

Mr McNulty: Thanks for your evidence, folks. It is wonderful that you aspire to a Barnahus-type model, but it is worrying that, as you have identified, there are gaps. It is frightening for the children who are experiencing the system right now.

Mr Beattie: Thank you to you and your team, Julie, for a really good briefing. When we look at a review such as the Gillen review, sometimes we just expect it all to be implemented, but the review is quite complicated in places.

You mentioned this a few times, Julie, but can you give me a sense of how you will fix the issue of third-person disclosure — information held by the likes of doctors or counsellors — to make sure that the victim is not put off from coming forward and that the defendant has the full support that they need in order to mount a defence?

Ms Wilson: On that issue of balance, I refer back to what I said in my opening remarks about the Gillen review recognising that nothing that we do can interfere with or compromise the article 6 rights of the defendant. A balance absolutely needs to be struck. We recently launched a consultation on legislative proposals to strengthen protections for the complainant's private materials, which include their medical records and counselling records. That consultation is ongoing. We will need to look at and consider the responses to that.

Claire, do you want to talk about that? You have been working with the Commissioner for Victims of Crime.

Ms Campbell: One of Geri Hanna's priorities is to tackle that disclosure issue. That issue puts a lot of people off. The proposals that are being consulted on are based on the existing judicial practice direction. Those directions are not statutory. They are difficult, and we know that they are not being complied with. That leaves complainants in a position where they are not sure whether their material has been sought from a third party. Through the proposals, we want to put in place strict requirements on applications by the defence seeking those materials. There will be objectives whereby they are required to notify the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the complainant and the third party who holds the material. Everyone would then be put on notice. For example, the complainant may wish to object to the scope of the request. It could be a broad request. We want to narrow those requests down so that they are specific and follow an established line of inquiry. It cannot be a broad request, and there needs to be a justification.

It gives the complainant the information about what is being sought, and it gives them the power to object to that. That relates then to the other part of the legislation that we are bringing forward, which is to allow the SOLAs to go into court and represent those views pre-trial. Does that answer the question?

Mr Beattie: That is perfect, thanks. I was trying to get a sense of that really complicated juggling act that you have to do, and I can see how difficult it is.

I have two more very brief questions. First, can you give me a sense of where we are with minority groups on the issue, particularly men, because they are being left behind? I appreciate that it is mostly women, but there are minority groups. Secondly, I have been banging this drum on so many occasions: can you confirm that the victim and witness survey, from now on, will include statistics from those who have suffered sexual violence?

Ms Wilson: Do you want to talk about the survey first, Claire?

Ms Campbell: Yes, I am happy to do that. The Northern Ireland victim and witness survey has provided us with lots of really helpful information and feedback from victims over the years, and it still does. We have found that it is no longer getting back the returns that we want, and there is a view that the methodology is no longer fit for purpose. As you said, it does not get feedback from particular groups, not just domestic and sexual violence but road traffic and different areas. We are looking at the future for getting victim feedback, and the commissioner's survey is part of that. We want to work with her office. We also want to work with other partners who do victim surveys to see whether we can come up with an overarching approach to make sure that we get representative feedback from victims at every stage of the process and that we are not duplicating what we are doing. We hope to realise some financial benefits from that as well. We are working with the commissioner and all the partners to see how we can come up with an appropriate methodology. We want to do that at pace, because we do not want there to be any gap, where we lose sight of the victim journey. We have some plans in place to map through how we can get better data in future.

Mr Beattie: I am glad to hear that. I put that question to the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, and she said something similar. I am glad that you are trying to come together on that, so that we can have one survey that covers the full range of information and we can gain something from it.

I asked about minorities.

Ms Wilson: You mentioned men as well. There has been a lot of focus on women and girls, and that is appropriate. We know that women and girls are disproportionately affected by these kinds of offences, but we are also very aware that it is not only women and girls and that victims of these offences have intersectional needs. The domestic and sexual abuse strategy is where we are trying to understand more about those intersectional needs, but also, for a lot of the services that we are delivering, the strategy has been developed knowing that anybody can be a victim of domestic or sexual abuse. The services that are available — for example, the advocacy service and the SOLA services — are available to victims regardless of their gender or any personal characteristics. They seek to provide tailored support appropriate to victims' needs. The 24-hour helpline is also available for domestic abuse.

The Department is currently re-procuring for an advocacy service, and, as part of that tender exercise, we have highlighted that we want the service provider to deliver that service to meet people's needs and to look at what the barriers are to someone accessing those services. If they are male, what could be done to promote the service to different genders and different communities where we know that people may face additional barriers to coming forward? That is a start. It is not all of it. We want to work with community and voluntary sector partners to look at what the needs are and how we meet them. The commissioner has also done work looking at men and boys and their needs, and I think that she wants to build on that. Work is ongoing, and we will want and need to do more work through that domestic and sexual abuse strategy to make sure that we are identifying the barriers to accessing support and accessing justice.

One of the Gillen recommendations was for research into prevalence among minority groups. We have not yet started that work. Again, we are speaking to our colleagues about how we will take that forward. There are other pieces of research ongoing at the minute, but that is not one of them.

Mr Beattie: Julie and team, thank you. The Men's Advisory Project feels like it is standing on its own a little bit. In many ways, it is and needs support. Thank you very much for that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I will follow on from Doug's questions. The Gillen review recommended that research should be carried out into serious sex offences in marginalised communities. Has that been done?

Ms Wilson: That is the one piece that we have not started yet. We need to look at our terms of reference and develop terms of reference for that. We have started other pieces of research, and other work has been done that is not research but is about reaching out to minority groups and minority communities to basically help people see what supports are there etc. The PSNI has led on some of that work, and we have provided funding for it. However, we have not yet started the research into prevalence among minority groups.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Is that likely to be done soon? Is it in any of the immediate forward work programmes?

Ms Wilson: It is not in an immediate forward work programme. Again, it is a capacity issue, and that is why we not been able to do that yet, but we will build that into our work programmes going forward.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): OK. Will you keep us updated on that?

Ms Wilson: Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): It is an important area to touch on.

In your opening comments, you talked about delay, and that is part of a wider programme of work as well. In some of the cases that have gone through the courts recently, the victims and survivors have said that one of their key frustrations is the delay and the length of time that it has taken for judgements. You said that work is going on around the abolition of oral evidence in committal proceedings, but what other areas of work are being addressed as part of that broader work programme on delay that will link directly back to the Gillen review recommendations?

Ms Wilson: I can give you a high-level overview, but I am not across the detail, because that is being progressed by another part of the Department.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Can we get a written follow-up on that, please?

Ms Wilson: Yes, I am happy to do that.

The other bit that falls within this programme is the under-13s protocol, which is judge-led and is having a significant impact on delay in cases in Belfast and Antrim involving under-13s. The aspiration is to widen that out, and the principles are being applied to all under-16 cases now but without those hard targets being put in place.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): It would be good to get in writing that information about that broader piece of work.

You mentioned the children's protocol. Is it being piloted in the two areas? Is that likely to be extended? If so, when?

Ms Wilson: Technically, it is no longer a pilot because it has been around for some time. It has not, because of resourcing implications, been formally extended. The under-13s protocol sets quite hard targets, and there is a commitment to delivering against those hard targets in those areas.

It was done on a voluntary basis with no additional resource. Extending it out with those hard targets would require considerable additional resource. However, all the parties that are involved have agreed to seek to apply those principles to all cases across the core areas that involve who are children under 16. I will turn to Claire again.

Ms Campbell: The difficulty with widening it out is that the under-13 protocol is judge-led, so we are speaking about someone else's priorities. I think that all the partners would agree that it is based on a manual process. There is a cohort of under-13s with specific cases. Progressing them through the system, from one end to the other, relies on lots of personal contact between different organisations. Before we invest any money, as a Department, we want to get more data and more systemic information on the process. That is one of the things that we are looking at with the other organisations. We hope to bring a paper to the judge-led group in January with recommendations on how we can widen it out further.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Has work begun to at least assess it, then?

Ms Campbell: Absolutely. Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): No bother. Thank you.

You brought up jurors' guidance. Have there been issues with jurors? Does the guidance address a trend, or is it just based on best practice?

Ms Wilson: It is partly based on best practice. It also looks specifically at social media responsibilities.

Mr Bloomer: Given that the Gillen review came out shortly after the infamous Ulster Rugby rape trial and all the social media issues around that, there were Gillen recommendations that were based on that trial. The guidance for jurors reaffirms what they are and are not supposed to do. As Julie said, it is provided to all jurors ahead of a trial.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I suppose that that is under constant review as technology develops.

Mr Bloomer: Absolutely. Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That is brilliant. Thank you.

One issue that comes up constantly is resource pressures and prioritisation. Is a plan built in for the resourcing that is there? Has a comprehensive impact assessment been done of what you have prioritised? As part of the transformation board, I know that the Department has put in pieces of work on invest to save, so are there investment proposals in this area that could be taken forward that would provide savings by reducing delay and all that?

Ms Wilson: Certainly, on the speeding up justice side, there is a lot. I am not over that bit of it. The speeding up justice programme has separate funding arrangements. Things like committal reform are funded separately from us.

We will see potential savings from the full implementation of the Gillen recommendations if attrition rates drop, if people go through the system more quickly and are able to start their recovery journey more quickly, and if we appropriately meet their needs. There are system-wide savings to be had around people's well-being needs, so there are opportunities there.

On our resourcing picture, we are working on an up-to-date outline business case that sets out our gaps. Given the pressures across the system, it is always likely that we will still look at how we prioritise. However, the next step for us is to define the gap.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Does that mean that part of the business case will look at an impact assessment of the costs?

Ms Wilson: Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): When will the business case be concluded?

Ms Wilson: We are looking at the OBC but not necessarily at all the supporting material. The full impact assessment will not be done at this stage. The OBC will be completed in early January, and then, flowing from that, we will need to look at the impact assessment.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): OK. Do members have any other questions? No. Nigel, Julie and Claire, thanks very much for coming in today. I appreciate your time, and good luck in the time ahead. Thank you.