Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): We have the Members of the Youth Assembly before us. You are welcome to the Justice Committee. On behalf of members, let me say that we really appreciate your coming along and taking time out of your busy schedules. We are really looking forward to this engagement. We will be nice with you all. Fair play to you for coming along.

I welcome Ciaran, James, Matthew, Cara and Brooke. You are welcome. Claire is sitting in, and, Claire, you can also contribute if you want to. Thanks for attending to discuss these items. I will throw it over to you, whoever wants to open up and give an introduction. We will come back at the end with any questions, and each of the members will introduce themselves to you.

Ms Cara Ní Cheallaigh (Northern Ireland Youth Assembly): Thank you to the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Justice Committee for inviting us along today to give evidence on the Justice Bill. I will begin our statement with a brief background to the Youth Assembly. The Youth Assembly was established in June 2021. The current 90 Youth Assembly Members took their seats in October 2023. At the time of recruitment, we were in school years 9 to 12, which cover ages 12 to 16 approximately. We are a diverse group. The membership includes young people from every constituency, and recruitment was designed to ensure appropriate representation from section 75 categories, including gender, religious background, race, sexuality, disability and young people with caring responsibilities. In addition, there is proportionate representation of young people with care experience and those in receipt of free school meals.

Youth Assembly Members have worked with several Assembly Committees on inquiries and legislative scrutiny. Those include the Tobacco and Vapes Bill with the Committee for Health, the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill with the Committee for Communities and the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) mini inquiry with the Education Committee. We have also met Department of Education officials to help to shape policy on the recent curriculum review, the school improvement review, the free school meals and uniform grant review and pre-consultation on the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.

Mr Ciaran Creber (Northern Ireland Youth Assembly): I will focus on our work on the Justice Bill to date. The Youth Assembly team established an Ad Hoc Committee to examine the Bill. It must be noted that none of the Youth Assembly members of the Ad Hoc Committee has lived experience of the youth justice system. Given the scope of the Bill, its complexity, the amendments that have been made since the Bill's introduction and the lack of lived experience in the group, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to focus on Parts 1 and 2. There is no children and young person's version of the Bill or any documentation that would assist young people in understanding the key issues, so the Youth Assembly team required time to summarise the Bill and create a suitable document to enable Youth Assembly Members to better understand the complex issues. The document can be viewed at appendix A to our report, which is in your packs. Once that documentation was prepared, we met throughout March 2025 to consider the Bill. On 26 March 2025, we met the Minister of Justice and put to her several questions on Parts 1 and 2. The questions can be viewed in appendix B to our report. We also shared the Youth Assembly's children and young people's versions of Parts 1 and 2 with the Minister and her Department.

Ms Brooke Ewing (Northern Ireland Youth Assembly): I will focus on Part 1, which is on the retention of biometric data. First, I will discuss our views on the new 75/50/25-year model. The Youth Assembly recognises that a balance must be struck between public safety and solving crimes and the rights of the individual. The Youth Assembly is in favour of changing the law from the current position of holding biometric data indefinitely. However, Youth Assembly Members are still unclear on why the 75/50/25-year model was chosen, particularly as it relates to children. We put that question to the Minister, who told us that those figures are based on decisions and judgements made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and examples from other countries. She explained that the Department is trying to make this proportionate and easily understood and enforceable by the PSNI. None of that information has been made public.

Many Youth Assembly Members feel that the 75/50/25-year model is unfair to children and does not align with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), particularly article 3, which is on the best interests of the child; article 12, which is on the right to have your voice heard; and article 16, which is on the right to privacy. Members are concerned that there are insufficient safeguards for children and young people in that model and that no consideration has been given to age and maturity in relation to retention periods.

In the new model, there are a few points that concern the Youth Assembly. The first is desistance. There is much research from criminologists across the world stating that most people who start committing crime from a young age desist as they get older, usually by the time that they reach their late 20s or early 30s. That happens for many reasons, such as getting married, creating a family, a job or career or a new purpose in life. If that is the case, why, in some instance, is the biometric data of children and young people held for long periods? According to the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, speaking at a recent Committee for Justice meeting:

If that is the case, why is it important to hold the biometric data for so long?

There needs to be clarification of whether photographs will be used or classified as biometric data, because one of the recent amendments makes that unclear.

The Youth Assembly is concerned that the Bill does not allow for new technologies such as those developed with artificial intelligence (AI). Facial recognition technology is commonly used by police forces across the UK already. That is not included in the Bill. The Minister of Justice stated that she will look at that later, if it is something that the PSNI intends to use. The Youth Assembly feels that this is a missed opportunity.

Mr James Maginn (Northern Ireland Youth Assembly): I will discuss Part 2, which deals with bail, custody and remand for children. First, one of our main concerns is the stigmatisation of young people in the youth justice system. Secondly, Members are concerned about the disproportionate numbers of vulnerable children, care-experienced children and children from ethnic minorities in the youth justice system. Youth Assembly Members agree with the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) that the Bill should look at an application process for wiping the slate clean at age 18 for minor crimes committed as a child.

We welcome clause 9, which states that children will never be imprisoned with adults; clause 10, which states that, regardless of the crime, a child will be sent only to a juvenile justice centre; clause 11, which raises the age for being sent to a young offenders centre; and clause 12, which creates a new type of custody order — the youth custody and supervision order.

The law that states that children should be given bail is not working as well as expected. Our research shows that many children are kept in custody before their trial due to the lack of suitable accommodation, strict bail conditions or the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Few end up with a custodial sentence. The youth justice review and Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) have said that children should not be kept in custody if they are unlikely to receive a custodial sentence later. That is not part of the Bill.

The Bill also focuses on bail and custody for children but does not discuss the conditions while in custody. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child made many recommendations in that area in its concluding observations in 2023. We are concerned that those concluding observations have not been addressed in the Bill.

Ms Ní Cheallaigh: Overall, we have tried to examine Parts 1 and 2 through the lens of children's rights and, more specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Various articles from the UNCRC pertain to the Bill. Article 3, which is about the best interests of the child, needs to be the main focus of the Bill. However, in relation to Part 2, we would like the Committee to consider the observations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, because it has real concerns about the treatment of children in the justice system in the UK. In its 2023 report, it highlighted the following concerns:

Mr Matthew Moore (Northern Ireland Youth Assembly): Finally, there are a few other areas that we would like to highlight today. The Bill is large and rather complex in parts. The Youth Assembly created its own children and young person’s version, as there was no summary or explainer on the Department of Justice website. We recommend that all legislation regarding young people must be explained to them in a way that they can understand.

The Department of Justice should explain which reports and public consultations helped to shape the changes made in the clauses of the Bill. That will help young to people understand how the decisions were made. Young people from all backgrounds, but especially those with lived experience of the youth justice system, must have their voices heard on the Bill. The Minister told us that the Department has worked with children from NICCY, the Children’s Law Centre (CLC) and young people in the youth justice system.

The Youth Assembly would like to have been able to consider those views but could find no records. The Youth Assembly urges the Committee to ensure that it hears the views of such young people when examining the Bill. We are happy for the summary created by the Youth Assembly to be used to assist other groups, as we want as many young people as possible to have their say, and we understand that other groups have found the Bill difficult to understand.

It is unclear whether a child rights impact assessment was carried out in the development of the Bill. The Youth Assembly advocates that the Department ensure that that be carried out. Youth Assembly Members also discussed with the Minister the issue of equal protection. We are disappointed that equal protection is not in the Bill and encourage the Committee and/or individual MLAs to consider that as an amendment.

Ms Ewing: Thank you to the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Justice Committee for inviting us to have our views heard on the 2024 Justice Bill. We welcome your questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thanks very much for that comprehensive presentation. The Committee has highlighted a lot of the areas and concerns that you highlighted, so we are in tune in that way. We are looking to get more information, so thanks very much for each of your presentations.

I will open up to members to ask questions or make comments. Ciara was looking in to ask a question on bail and custody arrangements.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you very much. That was really comprehensive. I am sure that it was a bit daunting, and you did an excellent job. First, I commend the work of the Youth Assembly, particularly on the document, which is so comprehensive. It is even the case for us that it would have been easier to comprehend the Bill had we had that document before starting to read the detail. I would very much welcome — you all advocated this — legislation that will have an impact on kids and young people being more user-friendly. It should be more user-friendly, so I support your call.

Other members will focus on other areas, but I want to focus on bail and accommodation. You put a clear emphasis on having a child rights approach: legislation needs to be looked at through that lens. How would the likes of the Youth Assembly propose to have a more rights-based model for children in custody in the legislation? I am conscious that you have not experienced that and that, prior to carrying out your review, you would love to have seen the most recent research that has been done with young people. From your perspective, what are the other key areas across the Bill in relation to a more rights-based approach, particularly around bail and custody? I am conscious of the question of whether, first and foremost, people are aware of their rights in the process of bail and custody. That is what the Committee is trying to ensure. Have you any suggestions around that, such as how it could be improved or how people could be more informed and educated?

Mr Maginn: On bail and custody, we talked about being detained or arrested and put in a prison cell being a last resort. We talked about the wording around that being changed. We also talked about the fact that, when you are arrested, certain human rights to do with the legal process should be read out to you.

Ms Claire Torley (Northern Ireland Assembly): Yes. The children's rights.

Mr Maginn: Yes, children's rights: the UNCRC. You are read your rights when you are arrested or detained, but we talked about also being read certain human rights that are to do with the legal process. We discussed that. I do not know whether anyone else has any thoughts on that.

Ms Ferguson: That is fine. We have an evidence session with the PSNI following our session with you, and that is a key question that we would like to ask the police: how well informed are young people when they are brought into a PSNI station, what information are they made aware of, and are they are fully informed of their rights as they go through the process? Thank you for highlighting that.

I have a question on an area that all Committee members are concerned about. You have recognised the fact that detaining children in custody should be the last resort: I think that we all agree with that. There is, however, an issue with suitable accommodation. The Minister indicated that she does not intend to commence clause 8: how concerned are you about that? Clause 8 is about preventing young people being detained in custody, but the Minister has proposed not to commence clause 8 at this time because the accommodation does not exist. What are your thoughts and concerns? Are you rightly concerned about the lack of accommodation?

Ms Torley: Very much so. We know that there are limited spaces in Woodlands. We know that there is now an age separation between it and Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre and are glad that it goes right up to age 18. The young people and I were discussing how article 37 looks at the idea that detention should be the last resort and that there should be more accommodation. One of the things that they noticed is that there is nothing in the Bill about custody conditions. It is really just about what will happen when they are arrested or detained and the bail conditions, but there is nothing about the conditions, what the centres are like or even about developments to improve those centres or expanding that accommodation for young people. We know that it is not always just about their being arrested and being a risk to public safety; sometimes, it is also about their being a risk to themselves and the appropriate care that is needed at that time. That is why the Youth Assembly is very much focused on article 3 of the UNCRC, and, when you are taking the best interests of the child into account, there should be more expansion into accommodation for that, whether that is fostering, other centres being built or more funding for that.

Ms Egan: Thank you so much for coming in today. As Ciara said, the paper that you put together is really helpful, and I absolutely think that all Departments should look at that. It took me a while to get my head around the Justice Bill. I came on to the Committee only a few months ago, and I have been getting up to speed on the Bill. Genuinely, if I had had your paper a few months ago, it would have been a massive help, so thank you so much for your work.

I am really interested in the issues that you raised in your presentation around the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and equal protection. That has been raised with the Committee by multiple organisations. We had the Minister in front of us, and she said that she was open to looking at that but could not get agreement from the Executive. I am glad to hear that you are hopeful that someone will table an amendment on that. What conversations has the Youth Assembly had on that, especially on the minimum age of criminal responsibility? I think that you said that it should be at least 14. What are your views on whether it should be 14 or 16? A few organisations have said to us that it should be 16.

Mr Maginn: I know that NICCY suggested that it should be 16. I think that a lot of Members will agree that it needs to be raised from 10, but I personally think that 16 is slightly high, because a large proportion of this is to do with the development of your frontal lobe and your brain and your ability to differentiate between right and wrong. I personally feel that, at 16, a large proportion of people will be able to recognise the difference between right and wrong. For me, personally, it should be 14.

Ms Ní Cheallaigh: When we were chatting to the Minister, she talked to us about raising the age to 14. Some of us agreed with that. However, if we were to raise it to 16, there is also, as we said in our statement, the issue of 16- and 17-year-olds not being treated as children in the justice system. That is also an issue that needs to be considered if we are to raise the age.

Ms Egan: That is a really good point. Thank you.

Have you had much conversation about equal protection and the removal of reasonable chastisement when it comes to abuse of children and young people? That is not included in the Bill.

Ms Ní Cheallaigh: There was not much conversation about it, because it is not included in the Bill.

Ms Egan: No problem. Thank you so much for coming today.

Mr Bradley: Connie touched on the age of criminal responsibility, so thank you for talking about that.

I want to ask about the regional care and justice campus. How would that help to rehabilitate and support children who have erred and need rehabilitated, as opposed to being in the system? What are your thoughts?

Ms Torley: If they went through a process of rehabilitation rather than being constantly in the loop.

Mr Maginn: Yes, rather than being in and out all the time. In the dream scenario that we were able to get as many people as possible through that system, yes, that would be a great benefit, but, again, we need to be realistic.

Mr Bradley: Would it help?

Mr Maginn: Of course. Definitely. We have talked about how imprisonment is the last resort and that you want to get people out of the system as quickly as possible so that they are not in and out over and over again and just moving through different sites in the prison system.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much.

Mr Baker: You covered so much in your paper. Thank you so much. It is really important that you are here today, holding us to account. I am very much an advocate of lowering the voting age to 16. A lot of the stuff in this Bill and many Bills that are going through the House impacts on your lives and will do so in the future, but, unfortunately, right now, you have no say on who makes those Bills. This is your chance, so I want to give you an open floor.

You talked about biometric material. I believe that it stigmatises young people. I want to hear your view on the stigmatisation of young people that takes place and the amendments that you might like to see on biometric material that would reduce that stigmatisation.

Ms Ewing: We talked about whether photographs would be classified as biometric data. We all agree that they should be classified as biometric data. That is really unclear in the amendment, and it is not discussed much in the Bill. We feel that it should be mentioned a bit more.

Mr Maginn: On stigmatisation, although no one here has been through the youth justice system, we definitely feel that the 75/50/25-year system for keeping biometric data could make it feel, in a way, more serious for young people if their biometric data is collected. We talked about bail eligibility, custody being a last resort, it being good to get young people out of the youth justice system as quickly as possible and the taking of biometric data as a deterrent. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner said that biometric data had helped with only, I think, 0·34% of cases and asked, therefore, whether there was really a need to take children's biometric data. It is not necessarily about stigmatisation but about whether taking biometric data is really necessary for certain young people.

Mr Baker: You also touched on artificial intelligence. I am not very familiar with artificial intelligence, because technology moves so fast. What concerns have you talked about, not necessarily specifically about the Bill but about where technology is going?

Ms Ní Cheallaigh: The development of artificial intelligence is a big concern. That leads into biometric data, especially facial recognition, because it is possible to use AI to create fake biometric data. It could form someone's face without their being there. You would have that fear, if it were included in the Bill.

Mr Baker: My last question is about the amendments that might come in. You may not have got to that point in your conversations, but is there anything in particular that you would like to see for young people in the Bill?

Mr Maginn: One thing that we talked about that I, personally, am keen on is raising MACR — the minimum age of criminal responsibility. That is a big thing.

Although this would not necessarily be an amendment, significantly more clarity is needed around where the 75/50/25-year system came from, because it is difficult for us to understand. It is unclear.

Mr Baker: Same here.

Mr Maginn: Again, it would not be an amendment, but we would like clearer information on what meetings and consultations were done with different groups during COVID. It has been difficult to find out what consultation has been done so far on the Bill.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for your presentation today and for what you submitted. Well done. It is always good to see young people taking such an interest.

It was good that the Minister engaged directly with you. Was that beneficial? Did you get your questions answered?

Ms Ewing: Yes. We had quite a few questions for her, and we got answers. Some questions were not answered as directly as we would have liked.

Mr Dunne: We get that too; do not worry. [Laughter.]

Ms Ewing: It is not just us, then, thankfully.

It was helpful to talk to her and ask her questions face to face, rather than just sending her an email or something. We were grateful that she met us. We benefited from the meeting.

Mr Dunne: That is good.

Have you done any research on what is done in Europe and around the world on the minimum age issue? There is a range of minimum ages out there. I am keen to hear whether you have done any work on that.

Mr Maginn: As that is not in the Bill, we did not focus on it loads. There was a lot to focus on in just Parts 1 and 2. We have not done loads of research on that.

Mr Dunne: That is OK. It is a specific but topical issue. I am sure that you will keep that in mind.

You touched on the AI issue. Were you able to raise that with the Minister? You folks probably know better than we do how fast AI is developing; how much change it has already brought about; and how much change it will bring about. Where should the focus be on the AI issue?

Mr Moore: With AI, the focus should definitely be on photo generation. With the use of facial recognition, we feel that AI developments may lead to cases involving fake evidence such as fake video evidence. It would be a good idea to try to address that in the Bill in order to stop fake video evidence and other things.

Mr Dunne: Yes. It links in with social media as well. The series ‘Adolescence’, which has been talked about often, even in here, brought that home in a clear way. Were you able to express that to the Minister?

Mr Moore: Yes.

Mr Dunne: OK. Good. Well done, everybody. Thanks, folks.

Mr Beattie: I thank the panellists not just for their written evidence but for the way in which they presented their oral evidence, which was first class. The easy-read version that you produced is an absolute revelation, and we should see more of that.

This question is for any of you to consider. You talked about wiping clean criminal conviction records at 18: I can understand why you said that. When you came up with that, did you consider victims and the effect that it might have on them if, for example, somebody who was a persistent offender, even for minor crimes, until they were 18 suddenly, at 18, had all their crimes expunged? Did the Youth Assembly consider victims when it looked at that question?

Ms Torley: What they were really referring to was the Children's Commissioner's recommendation on that. I spoke to the Youth Assembly about the theory of desistance, which comes from criminology. We looked at it more from the point of view that a healthy balance needs to be struck on the retention of young people's data. They were made aware of the different types of crime and the biometric data retention periods for those, and they understand that there is a need to balance that against public safety. However, in the theory of desistance, it has been proven time after time that young people who commit crimes will desist after a certain time. There are very few career criminals in the world, and that is, usually, for the reasons that they stated, such as that people start a family, get a job, come towards religion, get a new purpose in life or whatever.

If somebody committed a serious crime such as dealing drugs when they were 14, which could have been done under the coercion of paramilitaries and the like, why should their data be kept for up to 50 years when they possibly desisted 30 years prior and have lived a completely different, more honest life since? That is what they looked at. They took the Children's Commissioner's recommendation about wiping the slate but recognised that there is a need to balance public safety against the retention of data for different crimes. They were not necessarily talking about victims; they were thinking more about the development of a young person — a person's brain does not fully develop until they are 25 or 26 — the impact of data retention and the stigmatisation that that would bring for a young person for the rest of their years.

Mr Beattie: The Youth Assembly raises a good point about the fine balance that has to be struck. If you were one day short of your 18th birthday, you could have your criminal record wiped clean. If you were to commit a crime twenty-four hours later, that would not happen. It may have an effect on AccessNI applications later in life. I raise that because it is important for the Youth Assembly to understand that, any time that you consider the question that is being asked of you — in this case that of children and young people in the criminal justice system — you must always make sure that you look at the other side of the coin, in this case the victims of any crime that has taken place. Those victims are real, and they need to be considered.

Ms Torley: The Youth Assembly operates from the point of view of children's rights. It operates under the Lundy model of youth participation; that is how it looks at things. On life experience, the Youth Assembly Members are still learning, and that is not to say that they are not empathetic towards victims. However, in this case, their main focus was to look at the Bill from the perspective of the rights of young people and children.

Mr McNulty: Brooke, Cara, Matthew, James and Ciaran, I am immensely impressed. I am trying to put myself in your shoes as a 15- , 16- or 17-year-old, when I would not have said boo to a goose. I am incredibly impressed by the depth of your understanding, the thoroughness of your analysis, the clarity and confidence of your presentation and your ability to field questions, which are not simple ones. You have a big future ahead of you in whatever field you choose, be that justice, which you would all be capable of working in, politics or wherever you go. Well done, all of you.

Tell me this: did the Justice Minister underestimate you folk? [Laughter.]

Mr Moore: She respected us. She understood that we have knowledge. I feel that she did not underestimate us and that she took our views into consideration.

Mr McNulty: She respected you, but she maybe underestimated you a little: is that what you are telling me?

Mr Moore: No, I do not think so. She understood us. She knew what we were doing. She did not underestimate us.

Mr McNulty: OK. Of the queries that you raised with the Justice Minister, what is your number-one concern or issue that was not answered satisfactorily? What is your biggest area of concern?

Ms Torley: I think that they are just taking their time because there is so much to go through.

Mr Maginn: It is to do with clarity on whether photographs are considered to be biometric data. A lot of clarity is needed, and, with the recent amendments, it has become even more unclear. Having that set in stone would be great.

Mr Moore: Also, I do not feel that we got the clearest answer on the 75/50/25-year model. More clarity on that would be nice.

Ms Ewing: She said that she would look at AI later, if the PSNI intended to use it. She was not able to answer on that directly or look at it directly.

Ms Ní Cheallaigh: Not to add more to the bandwagon, but the fact that custody conditions are not directly talked about in the Bill is such a major problem, because they act as a form of rehabilitation. You cannot rehabilitate if you are not in the right conditions. That aspect needs to be looked at.

Mr McNulty: That is a huge area of concern for us, as a Justice Committee. You, as the Youth Assembly, have identified major gaps in the legislation. It is a massive piece of legislation, and it is a huge concern that there are still those big gaps. Well done on identifying that, folks. We can consider those in our interrogation of the Minister and the Department as we proceed. Go raibh maith agaibh agus slán.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I thank you all again for your presentation. Is there anything that you would like to add or close with?

As Justin said, we, as a Committee, have raised a lot of the issues that you have raised. Other organisations, including the Human Rights Commission and the Children's Commissioner, are also raising issues. We are asking the Department for clarity, particularly on the 75/50/25-year model. We are still unclear about the rationale for that. As Doug said, it is about a balance of rights. We, as a Committee, are carefully considering that.

You are 100% right about the issue of photos, and we will ask the police about that. When we met the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, whom you mentioned in your opening statement, he said that the police collect and hold photos. We want to look in more detail at how those photos are used and shared. As was said, the police will be at the Committee after this session.

We, as a Committee, want to get the lived experience of those who have been through the system, because it is only when you have experienced that directly —. As part of that, we are engaging with Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and will do a session with Include Youth. It will be beneficial to share your document, which is user-friendly, with them. As I say, we really appreciate that document, and the Committee will use it as we consider each clause of the Bill. If it is OK, we will share that with those other youth organisations to allow them to work with the Committee, particularly on the issues of bail, custody and biometrics.

Is there anything that you would like to say in closing?

Ms Ewing: I have nothing to add other than, on behalf of all of us, to thank you so much for taking the time to listen to us and talk to us today.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Every one of us appreciates you coming in. Your presentation today was excellent, as was the written information that you gave us. We will use that, so we appreciate it. As Connie touched on, we all need to look at having documents that are user-friendly across all section 75 and minority groups. Hopefully, in the future, some of you will be on this side of the table or in whatever activism role you choose. We will hopefully see you again soon. Thank you.