Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I welcome Julie Wilson, head of victims support division; Emma Crozier, head of violence against the person branch, victims support division; John Bradley, head of civil legal aid reform; and Jane Maguire, head of civil and family courts branch. It is nice to see you. You are all very welcome. Thank you very much for taking the time to come and brief us on this really important issue. I invite you to make your opening remarks, Julie, and then I will open it to members for questions. Is that all right? I appreciate that the evidence session will be a fairly broad-brush overview. We have a lot of information, so thank you for that. I will hand over to you.

Ms Julie Wilson (Department of Justice): Thanks for this opportunity to brief you on the report and the wider work that we are doing on domestic and sexual abuse. As you said, my colleagues Jane Maguire and John Bradley are here, and they can answer questions that relate to domestic abuse, the family courts and the domestic abuse waiver.

I will turn first to the report under section 34 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 (DACPA). As you are aware, section 34 requires the Department to report on the operation of the domestic abuse offence, child aggravators and the generic domestic abuse aggravator. This is the first report to be published under the legislation, and it covers the period from 21 February 2022 to 31 March 2024. As you know, we previously shared the report with the Committee in March this year. The report, and the statistics that it presents, highlights why the new offence is so important.

I will briefly summarise the statistics. During the reporting period, a total of 1,757 domestic abuse offences were recorded by the PSNI. Of those, 31 involved victims under the age of 18, and 613 offences included a child witness or other child involvement. A further 5,718 prosecution files included an offence that was aggravated by domestic abuse, under section 15 of the Act. Prosecution activity has significantly increased under the Act. In the financial year 2023-24, there were 2,728 prosecutions involving offences under the Act, which was an increase of 67·9% on the previous year. Conviction rates have also improved, rising from 51·7% in 2022-23 to 55·5% in 2023-24. Notably, Crown Court outcomes have been particularly strong, with 88·2% of domestic abuse cases resulting in convictions in 2023-24.

The report identifies areas that are working well, as well as areas where we need to focus our efforts. Domestic abuse contest courts (DACC) and remote evidence centres (RECs) are emerging as promising innovations that allow complainants to give evidence in a safer, more supportive environment, and there are positive results there. There has been an 89% conviction rate across DACC sessions, and two thirds of those outcomes were secured through guilty pleas without the need for the victim to give testimony. However, I caveat that by saying that the cases that are heard in DACC sessions generally involve witnesses who are engaged with the criminal justice process, so we expect to see higher conviction rates there. Nonetheless, the results are noteworthy.

Training has been critical. Over 6,000 PSNI staff have completed relevant online training. The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has established a multi-year training programme with the Women's Aid Federation Northern Ireland and the Men's Advisory Project Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) staff engagement has also grown, with 2,081 staff completing the domestic abuse e-learning, which was up from 1,419 in the previous year. We recognise that there is more to do there, and we have been working with the Women's Aid Federation Northern Ireland to develop a shorter, more accessible training package to encourage further uplift across NICS and other sectors. We hope to start to roll that out after the summer.

Concerted efforts across all criminal justice agencies continue to be essential. We are not there yet; there is still more that can be done. For example, a key part of the report focused on victims' experiences at court. The findings were mixed. Some were positive. However, it was found that referrals to support services for victims were inconsistent, with some victims not being connected to appropriate support until much later in proceedings, and that there were delays in confirming special measures. We recognise that those kinds of delays have an impact on complainants, and agencies are working to address those issues.

In some cases, the layout of court buildings has been problematic. For example, some witnesses reported that they came into direct contact with their alleged abuser in the courthouse. Being able to expand access to RECs beyond the current provision in Belfast, Craigavon and Foyle would help with that. We are some way off being able to do that, but it is an aspiration. There have also been issues around communication, with some victims reporting that they felt uninformed or that the language used was legalistic and inaccessible. That is a broader point that is probably applicable to all victims of crime, and it is one of the areas that we would like to address under the victim and witness strategy. We will work with partners to consider how to address those issues and to explore any other suggestions and proposals that have been posed.

We plan to publish a second report in autumn this year, and that will cover the period from 1 April 2024 until 31 March 2025. After that, it will be cyclical, with annual reports being published every autumn. Subject to the views of the Committee, we hope to publish the report on the Department's website shortly after this session.

I will touch briefly on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy and some of the key points of focus for us under that. Work is progressing well. I will turn first to the review of Northern Ireland's multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) arrangements. That is really important work for us. It is intended to strengthen how we mitigate risk to victims of domestic abuse. The earlier review by the Leonard Consultancy highlighted a number of areas that needed to be strengthened. It recommended that Northern Ireland should step away from the MARAC principles and develop a bespoke model for Northern Ireland. We subsequently formed a working group that was made up of a wide range of statutory, voluntary and community partners. That group has developed recommendations for a new model, which are being considered by a senior oversight group. The emerging recommendations focus on such things as the overall structure, frequency of meetings and governance; how victims should be referred into the system; consideration of wider family issues; incorporating a perpetrator focus so that we can look at how to mitigate the risk that is posed by the perpetrator, not just the risk to the victim; the need for adequate and effective training; the need to have really smart action planning, for those action plans to be monitored and reviewed and for the risk assessment to be subject to review.

Once the report has been fully considered and a new model has been agreed with Ministers, we want to move swiftly into implementation stage — it will be a big piece of work — with a view to prioritised recommendations being brought into operation in the second half of this financial year.

Supporting victims remains a priority for us. Earlier in the year, we re-procured advocacy services for victims of domestic and sexual abuse. We have awarded a new contract. As part of that, a new service will provide dedicated support for children and young people. That is due to go live next month. Both the adult and children's services will be delivered by ASSIST NI. I think that members are aware that, in addition, a new children's sexual offences legal advice service, delivered by Victim Support, was launched in February 2025.

We are also continuing to support the domestic homicide review (DHR) process. To date, executive summaries of five DHRs have been published. We anticipate further reviews being published in the next few months. The learning from each of those is really important. Equally important is that the recommendations are being implemented in a timely fashion. We have now established a multi-agency working group to really focus on any cross-cutting recommendations and to drive those forward. Separately, the Department of Health has established arrangements to ensure that any recommendations for Health and Social Care are being implemented and that learning is being shared across trusts.

In addition, we are continuing to work closely with PSNI and other partners and stakeholders to develop the domestic abuse protection notice (DAPN) and domestic abuse protection order (DAPO) regime for Northern Ireland. Previously, we have briefed you on the logistical and resourcing challenges that we have been trying to grapple with on those. We are still actively working on that. As part of that, the DOJ and PSNI recently visited one of the pilots in England and Wales where DAPOs and DAPNs are being trialled. That was really valuable. It has identified a lot of key learning that will help to shape what we do in Northern Ireland. Later in the summer, we plan to have a further visit to a different pilot area that has taken a slightly different approach. I am happy to talk in more detail about some of the learning and issues that have emerged from that visit.

Recently, we hosted a round-table policy workshop with key voluntary and community sector partners, again, looking at what some of the challenges are, identifying the problems that we want to fix through DAPNs and DAPOs and, rather than trying to lift a model from England and Wales and applying it here, looking at how we work around some of the issues and challenges that we have been experiencing.

As well as those areas that DOJ is leading on, the strategy is, as you know, cross-cutting, so there has also been progress by other partner Departments. In Education, work is ongoing on a new Northern Ireland curriculum framework. That will inform any future Education guidance that relates to domestic and sexual abuse. The Department of Health is preparing a reflections booklet for social workers. Safe spaces have been established in all jobs and benefits offices. The Housing Executive is progressing work under its domestic abuse action plan. That includes training of domestic abuse advocates and improved referral processes into the sanctuary scheme. We understand that that is already seeing increased use.

Those are just a few of the areas that we have been focusing on since publication of the strategy. I hope that you found that helpful. I appreciate that I took quite a long time to talk you through those areas. We are happy to take any questions that you might have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Great, Julie. Thank you very much. It is great to have your overview because, obviously, there is fairly extensive documentation on that subject. The Committee takes a keen interest in it. We have had a lot of correspondence on it. We are really grateful to have you in front of us today.

Who wants to start us off? Has anybody got anything? I have a few bits and pieces. [Laughter.]

I do not usually start. I usually go at the end, as you know, but if everybody is being shy today, I will kick off. You mentioned the DAPOs and DAPNs, Julie. We have spoken about that before. Can you highlight for us some of the key learning from other places? Is there any concept of a timeline at this stage?

Ms Wilson: I will deal with the first bit of that. In April, we visited the pilot in Croydon. The really striking takeaway from that has been the difference in the numbers that they are anticipating and the numbers that we have been anticipating. Some of that comes down to how you interpret the application of the legislation. The draft legislation that we have prepared is based very much on the legislation in England and Wales, and the thresholds are the same. We reached our estimated numbers by the PSNI's taking a dip sample and going through a sample of cases that had occurred during a particular time in the year, looking at those cases and applying the legislation to see which of them it would have anticipated issuing a notice for and then making an application for an order. When the PSNI did that exercise and then extrapolated it out over the number of cases in the year, it came to an estimate of 5,500 in the first year of notices being made, rising, with familiarity with the legislation, to 8,500. Those are really significant numbers. Obviously, the pilot area in Croydon is smaller than Northern Ireland. The number of domestic abuse cases that they are dealing with is slightly smaller than Northern Ireland's, but not significantly so. I think that it was 15,500, whereas there are roughly 18,000 domestic abuse crimes in Northern Ireland, so the figures are comparable. Whilst our estimated figures have been in the 5,500 to 8,000 range, in Croydon, they have estimated 700.

We have also been engaging with counterparts in Scotland. When they have been doing estimates and engaging with Police Scotland, their figures have also been in that higher range, so there is a huge discrepancy or difference between what we are estimating and what Croydon is experiencing. Where our thinking is taking us is that it is almost inevitable that we will have to pilot any model because there is such a difference. When we have spoken to partners and delivery partners in the community and voluntary sector, their expectation is that the numbers would be higher than 700. Even if you were to multiply that to get an equivalent population to Northern Ireland's, you would still be looking at 1,400. We are likely to conclude that the only way forward is to pilot in a police district and take the learning from that pilot to, then, scope what the impact would be across all police districts and courts in Northern Ireland. That is where we are going.

There are still some issues for which we have been unable to find an operational workaround. Previously, I explained to you that we had difficulties with meeting the time frame that has been put in place in England and Wales. The experience in Croydon has been that they are also struggling to meet that time frame, although for different reasons. For us, there is an absolute difficulty operationally with police being able to bring a DAPO application within 48 hours, particularly when an incident happens in the middle of the night, which effectively means that a DAPO application would have to be brought the next day to be able to meet that 48-hour deadline. We are going to have to look at what is reasonably practicable with regard to that time frame and whether we need to set a slightly longer time frame in Northern Ireland. Those are some of the issues that we are working through with the police and other partners.

It was really helpful to see how the system is being run in Croydon and how they are using positive requirements. That was another challenge for us. Positive requirements would, for example, be attaching the requirement to complete a behavioural change programme or substance misuse programme. One problem for us when we have been looking at that is the availability of those programmes in Northern Ireland. If we were to have a pilot in a police district, it would be easier to deliver those positive requirements programmes and to test their impact.

We have moved forward, but there is still a lot of detail that we need to work out. We are planning to visit a different pilot area. The pilots in England and Wales are not all being run in the same way. There has not been guidance as to how the threshold in the legislation is to be interpreted operationally, so that is being interpreted in different ways by different pilots and groups. That is probably a significant point for us, given the disparity between the numbers that we are predicting and what Croydon has been predicting. The police response is also being managed in different ways. In Croydon, a dedicated team handles those. In other areas — in Manchester, I believe — it is not a dedicated team. We want to see what works best operationally and what is most effective as regards the police response and the pressures being put on police and how those are managed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Are the police going with you on those visits?

Ms Wilson: Yes. There was a suggestion at the last round-table event that, next time, we bring a representative from the Women's Aid Federation, which would be really helpful. A bit of coordinating of diaries, particularly over the summer, needs to be done for that. The round table was constructive for us but also, I think, for our community and voluntary sector partners in helping to understand better the problems and challenges, and also in having fresh thinking about ways around those. It has been constructive.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Clearly, you have a lot on the go, but what are the timelines?

Ms Wilson: Timelines —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Is there anything that you are even aiming towards?

Ms Wilson: We would want to have a model pinned down by the end of this calendar year. In order to do a pilot, we will need to revisit our draft regulations. Due to the fact that it is secondary legislation, we would need to produce regulations for that pilot, and, at the point that it was rolled out, we would need a new set of regulations for the wider roll-out. There are a lot of operational details that we need to bottom out, not just with the police but with the courts etc, so there is a lot that we need to grapple with. I would like to have agreement on a model by the end of this calendar year, but I am scared to say that out loud. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That gives us an idea of what you are aiming towards. We understand that things happen, but that gives us some concept as to when.

Ms Wilson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have a few more bits and pieces here, and then I will bring others in. Julie, I am not sure how much you can tell us about the Creswell review. I did wonder about the work that you are doing in that field, and I appreciate that that review is ongoing. There have been Police Ombudsman's reports and reports from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. To what extent are you coordinating everything that arises from each of those reports and making sure that all the work is progressing together?

Ms Wilson: Another part of the Department is leading on Creswell and the Police Ombudsman. We will engage with that where there are interdependencies: for example, the MARAC review, which is different, but has to take account of Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI) and other things. However, I am not leading on those. I think that there is engagement and communication across business areas and policy leads, but I am not —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): No, I did not expect —.

Ms Wilson: I feel very constrained to say anything in detail about it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You are not the person. No, that is grand. We have had a lot of reports recently about silo working inside the Department, and I want to be sure that, where there are subject areas, everybody who is engaged in a subject area is moving in the same direction at the same time and that the issues are being taken forward holistically.

Ms Wilson: Yes. I mentioned the MARAC recommendations. Certainly, one of those recommendations is around the new MARAC. It will not be called "MARAC" because that is a trade name or branded. In taking forward the new arrangements that will replace MARAC, we need to recognise the crossover and linkages and to strengthen the linkages with what is happening in the PPANI as well, recognising that those are two different processes: the PPANI is statutory, but the MARAC arrangements are not, at this point. Effectively, they both deal with protecting people, so there need to be linkages and referral pathways and things. We will be progressing that with that in mind.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. Keep us posted on that.

I have a couple of big, general issues before I narrow down into a couple of things. We have had regular correspondence from a number of people, particularly females who have been through the domestic abuse situation and have had to go through the courts and so on. The issues that they raise are similar to those contained in your report about re-traumatisation, about the court system being used as a weapon and all those things. That is not peculiar to female victims either; it is a victims' issue. Have you made any progress on some of those issues?

Ms Wilson: I can focus on the criminal justice side, and maybe Jane and John can come in on the civil, family and legal aid sides. On the criminal justice side, for domestic and sexual abuse and for vulnerable victims more generally, we recognise absolutely that the criminal justice process is traumatic, particularly where it is unfamiliar. Under the previous strategy, under this strategy, under Gillen, there are a number of things that we have been doing to try to mitigate some of that trauma, so it does come down to things like remote evidence centres, the supports that are available through Victim Support or through the ASSIST advocacy service. There are things that we have been doing to try to mitigate some of that. For anybody who is not familiar with criminal processes or court processes in general, that, of itself, adds to the trauma. There are lots of things that we have been trying to do to take the trauma out. We are seeing the results of some of that. I talked about the DACCs and the RECs and some of the impact that we have seen from their use.

I mentioned that we have re-procured the advocacy service, and, in doing so, we have changed the model. It means that it is now being focused on high-risk, high-harm victims. A smaller cohort of victims is being referred into that service, and we did that to ensure that the support that is available under that service could be more meaningful within our available budget; more intensive support is being provided, involving face-to-face meetings and so on. We have been doing such things to support people in trying to reduce the trauma of attending court. I recognise and have read out that that does not always work. There have been incidents where people have encountered —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There is particular reference to Newtownards and so on. Along those lines, are you having conversations with the judges?

Ms Wilson: The Lady Chief Justice's (LCJ) office is represented on most of our working groups around Gillen and victims' issues. We are having conversations about how those policies can be delivered in courts, but that has been, in most cases, through the Lady Chief Justice's office rather than directly with judges.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. You will appreciate that we have had meetings with the Minister and with the Lady Chief Justice and judges. That is why I am following up on that.

Those were broad-brush questions, and I will now move swiftly, because I am conscious that there is a queue of members to come in.

From the experience of my casework of late, I am concerned that the result of the ending violence against women and girls strategy — it is right that there is such a strategy — has been, although men make up a third of the victims, a lack of professional curiosity when men are claiming to be victims. I have had that conversation with the police. I am worried that, in the focus on ending violence against women and girls, men are not receiving the treatment that they should. That is not to diminish what goes on with women and girls, but I also believe that male victims should be receiving the same standard of service throughout the system. Are you doing anything or having any conversations to address some of those issues? You can see that that is borne out in your victim survey results from male victims. They face very specific and different barriers to coming forward and in the process.

Ms Wilson: We recognise that, and the strategy recognises that. We have always been really clear that a third of victims is a significant minority. The police response will be a matter for the police, but I know that they are alive to that and will be picking up in training the fact that there are male victims, and they will be sensitive to that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The police will be scrutinised by the Policing Board, and that is not my job. I raised it with the police directly. They will get their house in order, but, as people move through the system, what is being done in the wider justice system to ensure that male victims receive the same standard of service that they should and that, because the spotlight is on violence against women and girls, male victims do not remain in the shadows when they should be receiving equal treatment?

Ms Wilson: I mentioned that we have re-procured the advocacy service. As part of that exercise, in drawing up our tender specification, we noted that there will be significant minority who are men. We asked anyone who was bidding for that to demonstrate how they would build in to ensure that there are specific services there and that there is support that is tailored to men to promote that issue. An area that we need to look at collectively is how we make male victims aware of the supports that are there and of the mechanisms that are there that they can access. A 24-hour helpline is also available to male victims. ASSIST NI is not just for female victims. In re-procuring that service, that was one of the things that we asked service providers to look at. We recognise the issue. Is there more that we can do? Yes, there is. There are probably a number of different work streams that will feed into that. I know that, for example, the commissioner has done work on men and boys' access to services. We have —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): This was at the launch of that report.

Ms Wilson: Yes. The Men's Advisory Project is on the management board for ASSIST. Within the past year, we have made funding available to the Men's Advisory Project for things such as work in Hydebank Wood with male victims and attendance at MARAC. We are alive to the needs. Is there more that we can do? Absolutely. There are a number of work streams that will feed into that, ultimately.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great. In all these things, no set of victims should be taken forward at the expense of another. They all deserve to be treated in the right way, and I want to make sure that that is the case.

I will quickly and briefly move to the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report. I will take you first to strategic recommendation 2, which is about a service level agreement between the PSNI and the PPS. It states that the service level agreement was introduced in 2024 and:

Will you give us an update on the review?

I will give you my questions in order so that I can bring in other members.

There is an issue about the PPS not being able to update the PSNI when offences are missed, which seems quite serious. I would like somebody to explain that to me and to outline how it will be rectified.

Finally, operational recommendation 9 is about the Courts Service's recording of sentence enhanced and sentence not enhanced outcomes. Will you explain the issue and what the plan is? "Insufficient progress" is not the ideal status of a recommendation from the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. What is the plan?

Those are my three questions. I will let you answer those briefly, and then we will move to other members.

Ms Wilson: On your first two questions, I do not have the detail in front of me. We can write to you with more information. We will need to engage a bit more with the PPS and the PSNI on those and come back to you, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine.

Ms Emma Crozier (Department of Justice): Recommendation 9 relates to recording domestic abuse — sentence enhanced (DASE) and domestic abuse — sentence not enhanced (DANA) outcomes. That refers to when an aggravator is attached and whether it is recorded that a sentence has been enhanced or not. The issue that CJINI raised is that, in some instances, nothing was recorded against that. I know that the Courts Service is doing work to try to ensure that the field is completed in order to get better data on how the aggravator is working and on whether sentences are being enhanced as a result of that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Is there a reason why the field is not being completed?

Ms Wilson: Again, we will need to consult our Courts Service colleagues and come back to you. I am happy to write to you on each of those.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. I am flagging that up to you because, while I appreciate that the PPS and the PSNI are not necessarily within your jurisdiction, the Courts Service is within the Department's jurisdiction. I want to understand what is happening there, given that there is "Insufficient progress" on that recommendation. We, as a Committee, need to look at that. Thank you very much.

Ms Ferguson: First, I want to focus on section 36, which is "Prohibition of cross-examination in person in family proceedings". That is in the Act but is not commenced. The Department outlined some work that has been progressed to date but stated that other work had taken priority. It would be useful to get an update on the status of that work and to hear why more resources were not allocated to it, given that it is primary legislation.

Secondly, in relation to the waiver for eligibility of victims for civil legal aid, you mentioned that the uptake is pretty low. Your paper notes that 44 certificates have been granted under the waiver. That is generally because people were not aware of it and because of the general issues on the part of family practitioners in legal work. Will you provide some specific details of the work that the Department is doing, perhaps through the enabling access to justice delivery plan, to address the low uptake of the waiver?

Thirdly, CJINI recommended:

Will you provide us with a wee update on the progress on that work? What is the momentum in relation to bringing that forward?

Ms Wilson: Are you able to talk about the prohibition of cross-examination, Jane? John can then talk about the waiver, and Emma will talk about the third point.

Ms Jane Maguire (Department of Justice): Quite a bit of work is required to implement the prohibition of cross-examination in family proceedings — quite a bit of secondary legislation, in particular. A lot of work has been taken forward so that if, under the provisions, a party were to be prohibited from cross-examining in person, the court is able to appoint a legal representative to carry out the cross-examination on their behalf. One of the requirements in the Act is for there to be guidance on that role, so we have prepared draft guidance and engaged with the legal profession on that. The legal representative is funded by the Department. We have done quite a lot of work on developing a proposed fee scheme, and, again, we have engaged with the profession on that.

Under the legislative provisions, we need to specify certain criminal offences, certain protective orders and other types of evidence of domestic abuse that would trigger an automatic prohibition, and those all need to be specified in a statutory rule. We did a consultation on the issue of other types of evidence of domestic abuse. We have that collated and have a working draft of a statutory rule to give effect to that. Court rules are required in support, and we have progressed work on that. There was also a project group established, together with colleagues from the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Lady Chief Justice's office, on the operational arrangements to support it, particularly around how payments would be administered to court-appointed legal representatives.

A lot of work has been done. Unfortunately, we are a small team in the branch, and the work has been impacted on by other priorities that we have had to take forward, some of which have had particular timescales, but we hope to be able to implement that as soon as possible. We hope to be able to get back to it over the summer, when, hopefully, everything else quietens down a little bit. I can assure you that that remains a priority and that we are trying to progress it as soon as possible.

Ms Ferguson: There was no suggestion —. I am conscious of the various amendments in this Bill that it would have been seen as more appropriate to try to ensure that it was included in this Bill. Is it solely just down to resources or how was —?

Ms Maguire: Nothing else will be required in primary legislation. It is secondary legislation that is required in support. A number of statutory rules will be required, but, as I said, a lot of work has been done to prepare those. We still have a little bit more work to do.

Ms Ferguson: Do you think that it will come forward in this mandate?

Ms Maguire: I certainly hope so. Hopefully, we will be able to progress that in this business year. That is what we are aiming to do. Sometimes, as you know, other things come up, but, as I said, we hope to progress that as soon as possible.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Ciara, is that you done?

Ms Ferguson: No, I have two more answers to get.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Apologies.

Mr John Bradley (Department of Justice): Section 28 relates to the financial eligibility waiver for victims of domestic abuse. To update you on the figures, there is not a huge improvement. Up to 23 May 2025, there were 51 successful applications for the waiver. For completeness, I say that there were seven applications for the waiver where it was not granted. Some people who applied for the waiver did not need it, because they were already financially eligible for legal aid and, therefore, were not granted the waiver. The remainder were people who did not provide the documentary evidence required to satisfy the evidential test that they were, in fact, eligible.

Based on the work of the Outcome Imps commissioned by the Department to support its review that is required under section 29 of DACPA and based on the foundational review of civil legal services that the Department had undertaken and the further rapid review of priorities exercise that was conducted to support that, it appears that there are two principal reasons for the lack of uptake.

The first is, as you said, awareness; that is despite considerable efforts by the Department to make sure that all legal representatives are aware of the waiver and direct engagement with community and voluntary sector organisations that work directly with victims of domestic abuse to make sure that they are aware. It is very difficult to increase general awareness in the public of the availability of the waiver, because it is not relevant information to anybody up until the point when they need it. If you cannot communicate at that exact moment that they might be eligible, they will not be aware, and they will not claim. The second issue with it is that we have been told by a number of legal representatives that the remuneration available under legal aid terms is not sufficient and that they prefer to take on those cases only on a private-paying basis. There are those two things to address.

In the delivery plan for the enabling access to justice programme, which was published for consultation a little while ago, there are two actions that will speak to that directly. One is the review of the financial eligibility rules for legal aid in the round. One of the things that we can do there is to look at the circumstances in which it is not necessary to conduct a financial eligibility test at all. It is not that there is a test that is disapplied by a waiver, but we can do things such as say that, where a person who is a victim of domestic abuse makes an application for specific types of legal aid, there would be no financial eligibility test in those circumstances.

The benefit of that is that you can make sure that they have a comprehensive set of legal supports rather than the narrow legal support that is available in specific circumstances through the waiver. You can make sure that, for all types of legal aid that a person might need as a complainant in criminal proceedings, as a witness in criminal proceedings, as an applicant in private family law proceedings, as an applicant for a non-molestation order or for a DAPO, they can get all that eligibility in one application without having to go through repeated tests with different rules for different things. One opportunity to tidy that up and make it simpler and clearer for people is through the financial eligibility review that forms part of the delivery plan.

The second one is that there is an action in the delivery plan to look at improving specialist support, specifically for victims of domestic abuse and a few other groups. The main thrust behind that will be looking at how to get the support that is available through legal aid integrated into the other forms of support that people are getting. Eventually, it should be such that, when a person becomes a victim of domestic abuse and goes and reports that to someone, whether that is Women's Aid, the Men's Advisory Project, the police or their GP — whoever it is — the legal aid system comes to meet them where they are. You could have signposting from other service providers to providers of legal aid. People could therefore be made aware of their entitlement at exactly the point when legal aid is necessary and be signposted to someone who specialises in that work.

As part of that, we will have to address the fact that legal aid practitioners are telling us that the remuneration rates for that are insufficient to get them to do the work. There is no point in all the rest of it unless the pay is there. Therefore, the thing that we will have to look at — we said that we would look at it — as part of the improvement in providing specialist support for all those things, is to say, "This is early intervention. This is an extra skill set. This is a set of skills and knowledge for which the Department is prepared to pay a premium", and to set an appropriate level of remuneration for those types of services where we can construct them.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is quite onerous, is it not? The process is really onerous, and solicitors are like —.

Ms Ferguson: "What's the point?". That is the feedback that I am getting.

Mr J Bradley: That is it. At the minute, you have to make an application and submit evidence and so forth. We hope to move to a system whereby, if, let us say, you go to your GP in the first instance and make that report, they simply give you a document in doing the signposting, and that is enough to bypass the financial aspects of the application process. By making it an exemption from the financial eligibility test, it takes away a lot of the administration. With the waiver, people still have to supply information about their finances, so that the level of the contributions to be paid can be calculated; whereas, if it is taken out of the financial eligibility test entirely, you simply demonstrate your eligibility and move through, and the process should be much more streamlined. The work that needs to be done is to work out the package of support, what that looks like and how it integrates with the other forms of support that are available to people in those circumstances and is best integrated into that suite of services.

Those two actions in combination are intended to overcome some of the barriers to uptake.

Ms Ferguson: I am pleased that that is happening, because it is critical. It is all fine and dandy to say, "Aw, there's a waiver", but, in reality, it is not really assisting people. You then have solicitors saying, "I'm not going near it. What's the point?", because it takes so much time in hours, and they have to travel. There are the specialisms as well. We have a bigger issue regarding the availability of solicitors who specialise in that work. It is good to know that key actions are in the plan and that you are working to try to ensure that it is way more effective, so thank you.

Ms Crozier: I will answer the question about personal connection. As you mentioned, the 2021 Act as it stands requires a notice of personal connection. CJINI found that that is resource intensive for the PPS, and the victim is required to sign that as well. The recommendation would turn that on its head so that there would be a presumption of a personal connection between the two parties, obviously with the opportunity to challenge that. It would take that notice away. When CJINI finished its latest report at the end of 2024, there had been only one case where a defendant challenged that they had a personal connection. We accept that recommendation. We spoke to the PPS about it and sought the views of the Bar of NI and the Law Society. The blockage is getting a legislative vehicle to change the primary legislation. It is not in the Bill at the minute.

Ms Wilson: It is not in the Bill. We would struggle with capacity in doing that. We said that we will do some of the policy thinking, but, a bit like Jane said, because we are working on things such as DAPOs and the MARAC review — we have prioritised those because of how important they are — we would struggle to do the policy and instructions on a piece of primary legislation as well. That is something that we intend to do for sure, but we think that the changes to MARAC are where we need to focus our efforts at this point, because they will result in significant changes to how people are safeguarded and will lower the risk that people face. It is something that we want to do, and we will do the preparatory work within this mandate, but we see the legislation as likely to be in the next mandate.

Ms Ferguson: OK. Thank you.

Ms Egan: Thanks for coming in today. I want to talk about the report that was published in August 2022 that the Department commissioned into the experiences of victims and survivors of domestic abuse. You mention it in your paper. There are a number of recommendations in it, but I am very interested in those that are specifically on the family courts. People who have had negative experiences with that have contacted Committee, and I have also been contacted through my constituency office about it. I am interested in knowing how or whether the Department is taking those recommendations forward.

Ms Wilson: John, can I turn to you again?

Mr J Bradley: Yes. The original context behind commissioning that report was to inform the statutory report that the Department is required to produce under section 29 of DACPA. Section 29 is actually reasonably narrow in its provisions, because it talks about the Department bringing forward proposals to reduce the costs, including to zero, of being involved in family court proceedings for victims of domestic abuse and to reduce the capacity of those proceedings to be used vexatiously in order to continue abuse. Having read the report that was produced in August 2022, I can see that it goes considerably wider than that, as one would expect when dealing with the multifaceted nature of the experiences of that specific group.

We have referred the specific recommendations that deal with the operation of the family court to the Lady Chief Justice's office for consideration insofar as they concern the operation of the courts and court procedures. Our response in trying to mitigate some of that impact for people is focused, in legal aid terms, on the two actions in the reform programme that I mentioned. Those are about trying to ensure that people who are going to go through those processes have specialist and comprehensive support available to them so that they go in with an understanding of what they will face in the courtrooms and have enough support — that means professional and legal, as well as emotional and advocacy support — to cushion them against some of what we are told will often likely be traumatic experiences.

Committee members will also have seen the report on the review and rapid priority setting exercise that we published alongside the foundational review. It speaks in really quite frank and shocking terms at times about people's experiences in those processes. By and large, people tend to say that they are grateful for and welcome the support that they have had from the legal representatives who are involved in providing their work and that it would be a much worse experience without that. Our assumption is that something more could probably be done beyond simply providing legal help, and we are aiming at that through the action on improved specialist support for domestic abuse victims.

Ms Egan: I appreciate that. The report highlighted some of the concerns that are raised with us consistently, especially when it comes to victims of abuse being re-traumatised or feeling that they are not being taken seriously or listened to in the family courts. That also includes the voice of the children. It speaks about a pro-contact attitude in the family courts. A lot of people who have had those experiences feel quite frustrated. We have met with the LCJ and have also put that to the judiciary, but do you see the Department having a role in driving some of those recommendations forward?

Mr J Bradley: Obviously, we have to respect the independence of the judiciary in deciding how those proceedings are conducted and the prominence that it gives to different voices and principles. Those are legal matters for decision by the judiciary. The hope and expectation of the enabling access to justice delivery reform programme is that, if you can make sure that people who go into those environments —. Sorry, I should say that the Lady Chief Justice is aware of those issues too, and I am quite sure that she is working towards making that process a better experience for people who are there. By giving people specialist and comprehensive support, we hope to influence the culture of the courtroom to some extent. If solicitors and barristers who go into courtrooms are trained and experienced in trauma-informed practice and have a focus on reducing re-traumatisation and on giving prominence to voices that are not always heard, that will start to shift things in a positive direction from that perspective. However, in the end, it will need to be done in partnership between the Department, the legal profession and the judiciary.

Ms Ferguson: I have one wee comment. I am a bit concerned. I would like to see way more cross-departmental work being done on that given the concerns that have been raised not only in the report but in what we have discussed as a Committee and in our meetings with the Attorney General etc. That includes the Department of Health. It kind of gives that fuller picture, because we hear the same concerns, but I do not hear enough about actions that will drive the change that is required. I know that it is not just in one area. Hearing children's voices is critical, and there are some elements to do with advocacy in that, but not enough is being done across the courts etc. I know that we hope to do more on that come September, but, between now and then, I would like to hear more from the Department about the cross-departmental work that is being done to unpack all the concerns that have been raised to date through the report or by the Committee and about the changes that are being made collectively across all Departments that we could help to drive forward. I hope that that is OK. I do not want to put you on the spot, because I know that it is complex.

Mr J Bradley: That is very sensible.

Ms Ferguson: It is not just about the Department of Justice; it goes across a number of Departments.

Mr J Bradley: The reports that are conducted in all those spaces throw that up and present a complex and multifaceted picture. If you try to approach it purely from a legal aid or criminal justice perspective, you will not capture everything. That is why a lot of what I said about improvements to legal aid is really about integration and making sure that we join up where we need to.

Ms Wilson: Some of the devil is in the detail in the unpacking that you talked about. We need to unpack that piece on what specialist support looks like. We need to look at the join-up between the civil and criminal side, but, as you say, we also need to look at what that means for child protection and health and social care. That will come together, as it needs to, in that unpacking piece

Mr J Bradley: It is the right approach.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I will bring in Deirdre. Justin, let me know whether you still want to come in on that matter. If so, put your hand up for me. Thank you.

Miss Hargey: Thank you very much for your answers so far. You said that, under section 29 of the Act, the report on legal aid was to be laid within two years. There were reasons for that, and it will be laid in the coming weeks. Will that be before or after recess?

Mr J Bradley: I do not know. We provided a written briefing on the report. The plan was to get it in before recess, following the Committee's consideration of that written briefing and depending on its views. I have not reworked the timeline based on the fact that we are considering it today. It will be laid before recess, if that is at all possible. We may run out of days, depending on what further questions you guys have.

Miss Hargey: No worries. Thank you. My other question was about the Criminal Justice Inspection report from last year and the updated report this year.

There has been "good progress" on many areas of recommendation 8 but "insufficient progress" on the recommendation about the Courts and Tribunals Service. Joanne pointed to strategic recommendation of 2 of last year's report, which looks at the PSNI and the courts. I recognise that there have been good experiences for people going through the system in some areas, but there is negative feedback on timescales, lack of clarity, available support and appropriate referrals. That feeds into that issue, which was mentioned in a separate Criminal Justice Inspection report, of there being a siloed approach at times. I want to get a sense from you of what is being done to rectify that, particularly on moving that insufficient progress up to a point where good progress is being made. Is there a focus on that? Is access to justice an area of work that is being given priority?

In the other part, the report covers the need to have an increase in training, awareness and other matters in the PSNI. Do all those things correlate? Where they fall down in certain aspects, is the appropriate training and support being put in place? I would like a wee update on those areas.

Ms Wilson: The issue that you pointed to with referrals is not always limited to domestic cases. I chair the victim and witness steering group, so I know that referrals to Victim Support have been raised at that group. The police and Victim Support are actively looking at why there are some issues with referrals to support services, so, hopefully, that will prove the point that that work is not siloed but is being looked at strategically in the context of the wider victims and witnesses issues forum.

Sorry, you will have to remind me —.

Miss Hargey: It was about the Criminal Justice Inspection's saying that there was "insufficient progress" or "no meaningful progress" on a number of the recommendations that were made last year about the PSNI and the Courts and Tribunals Service. That is the front-facing end, so the concern is with the impact that that has on victims and witnesses. What specific work is the Department doing to rectify that, considering that that recommendation was made in April last year and that, in its update report last year, the Criminal Justice Inspection deemed that there was still insufficient progress?

Ms Wilson: The PSNI matters fall to the PSNI. I will write to you with an update on some of those areas, because it is for the PSNI and the PPS to progress them. We will also write about the courts issue. There were a couple of others that were for the Department: there is the one that we just discussed; and there are others on raising awareness of statutory guidance, which has been a focus. There was also the one that I touched on in my opening remarks about the low uptake of domestic abuse training across the Civil Service. We have also been working on that with the Women's Aid Federation. Emma, do you want to briefly talk about both of those?

Ms Crozier: Yes, sure. We are working on the e-learning package with Women's Aid and other voluntary organisations that helped us to develop the initial package, which was a four-module pack. The feedback that we received said that it was maybe too long and too detailed, so we are working to revise and shorten it. We will then roll it out again across the Civil Service and other sectors, including health and social care.

Julie also mentioned the guidance. Under our new strategy, which began at the end of September last year, we have new governance structures in place. We have the strategy oversight board, which Julie and her colleague in the Department of Health chair, and there is also the expert reference group. When that group first came to us, we presented the guidance as a key document that set out the terminology so that we would all be working to common terminology. Therefore, we will refresh the work on those two recommendations regularly and bring it to those groups.

Ms Wilson: You also mentioned police training. I am not in a position to give details on police training, but I know that a number of different modules have been produced. Domestic abuse training is being introduced from student officer stage. I know that over 6,000 officers have received the first module. That has been supported by learning forums and things like that. They are now looking at the roll-out of those additional modules. It is about how that is choreographed across police officers.

Miss Hargey: If you are going to get that update from the police, I would like clarity on the insufficient progress. The Criminal Justice Inspection's report this year said that more work on training for police officers and staff in front-line contact management roles was required in order to improve the quality of their threat and risk assessments. There are critical issues in supporting victims and witnesses. That report was published in April, so I would like to get an update on any progress that is being made to rectify that. That training will support officers too. I am keen to get an update on that. That would be good.

Ms Wilson: I mentioned the work that we are doing on risk assessment conferences. One of the key recommendations for that is on the training that is required for not only officers who attend an incident but everybody who is involved in the process, whether that be in assessing risk, understanding the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment form and so on. That has been recognised and will be built into our work.

Miss Hargey: As you said, it is about the importance of using the same language across the different areas of work.

Some of the recommendations were about work with Education, particularly given the impact on children and young people. What work is the Department doing with Education on capacity and skills and promoting an understanding of consent and positive relationships? I just wanted a wee update on that.

Julie, you mentioned the round-table work that was being done on domestic abuse protection notices and orders. What came out of the discussions about future work in those two areas?

Ms Wilson: I will talk about the Education piece first. Education has established a healthy relationships forum. The Department and TEO's ending violence against women and girls team are represented on that forum. Education has indicated that it wants to develop guidance on domestic and sexual abuse. However, that needs to flow from the work that it is currently doing on the Northern Ireland curriculum framework.

You will be aware of the police-led campaign Power to Change, which we previously provided you with information about and which TEO was involved in developing. A lot of that is about healthy relationships and the respect agenda. The PSNI and TEO are working on the next phase of that campaign and how those principles can be applied in different settings. Some of that will focus on education and youth work etc. That work is still being developed, although TEO has worked with young people to develop an associated game that explores those issues. Education is represented in our domestic and sexual abuse strategy. The Department of Education identified commitments to put into that strategy, and we will work with it to support it with that.

You also asked about the round-table. For me, some really important points came out of that. It was a really useful forum for our community and voluntary sector partners to understand in better operational detail why we have been finding the process hard.

That was really positive. One thing that we wanted to look at was what domestic abuse protection notices and orders will add over and above police bail conditions and non-molestation orders (NMOs). That crystallised for us the fact that the highest added value that they will bring is in the victim's not having to take the action themselves. That then lifts the onus that is on them to engage with legal aid and things like that, which John talked about. Applying for an NMO is a positive, proactive step, and it is complicated, but the police taking it out of the victim's hands by doing that takes the onus off them and means that it becomes part of the protective arrangements. That was a really strong point that came out of that round-table, and it is really important. If we then look at piloting, do we focus on that police-led element?

Interestingly, in Croydon, all the DAPO applications have been brought by the police, with the exception of maybe one or two. They find that victims of domestic abuse still take action, but they apply for NMOs rather than DAPOs. Everyone is familiar with the issues with NMOs, but it was really important for us to get the message out that it is not about taking agency away from victims, which you do not want; it is about removing from them the responsibility and onus. Someone else, namely the police, will do the application, because it should be done.

Miss Hargey: That is helpful.

Ms Wilson: That was a really important lesson.

Miss Hargey: Thank you for that.

Mr McNulty: Hi, Julie, Jane, Emma and John. How are you all? My question may have been touched on, but I want to probe it further. My concern is that, although discussions about the Victim Charter frequently involve encouraging victims to come forward to ensure that they access justice, there is evidence of victims not being referred to or not being made aware of the services that exist to support them through the legal process. Can you explain why that happens? How will the Department urgently rectify that?

Ms Wilson: We, and the police in particular, are looking at why those things do not happen in all cases. In some cases, a victim may opt out of a referral. When the police refer a person to Victim Support, legislation enables them to do so without that person's express consent. A victim has to opt out by saying, "I do not want a referral to be made". It has been identified, however, that that referral does not happen in every case, and we are actively looking at that. The police and Victim Support in particular are looking at why that does not always happen, and the victim and witness steering group is monitoring that work.

Other potential support services do not have an opt-out, so a victim has to give their consent. There is legislation that says that the police can refer a victim to Victim Support and the NSPCC. Unless someone says, "No, I do not want a referral to be made", the police can just go ahead and do it. For other services, the police need to say, "I can make a referral for you. Are you content?". There are questions about whether victims are not giving their consent and whether those questions are being asked in the first place. That will have to be looked at operationally, but we are aware that there are issues, and we are actively looking at that and monitoring the work as it progresses.

Mr McNulty: Operationally, is that not a major red flag?

Ms Wilson: We are looking at it and treating it seriously. Ultimately, it is a matter for the police to have the processes in place and to have the training, familiarisation and awareness for their officers to ensure that referrals happen. They are looking at that to ensure that they improve the referral rate. It is not just about domestic and sexual abuse cases, though; the issue is wider than that, and that is being looked at.

Mr McNulty: Would you not think that, in this day and age, it would be more than "looked at"?

Ms Wilson: They need to look at it to understand why it is happening. They are looking at it in order to address it with a view to improving the position.

Mr McNulty: Thank you very much for your evidence and your very important work.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Maurice, you indicated earlier that you wanted to come in, but your hand then went down. Do you want to come in?

Mr M Bradley: My question was answered quite well. I took my hand down once I heard the answer. That was a very good presentation. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much, Maurice. That is great.

If no one has anything further and we are happy that we have covered the ground, I will thank you all for your time and evidence, folks. We really appreciate it. As I said, this issue matters to the Committee. It is a priority for us, and we are grateful for your updates.

Before you leave, you may want to know the answer to this question: members, are we content for the Department to go ahead and publish the report?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much indeed.