Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I welcome Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Anthony McNally, Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald and Chief Inspector Gerry Doherty. Thank you for your time. I invite you to make an opening statement.

Assistant Chief Constable Anthony McNally (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for the opportunity to come back and to pick up on what we did not have a chance to go through at our session in the latter part of 2025. I do not have anything to add to the opening remarks that I gave at that meeting, subsequent to the amendments. As you know, this is our third time before the Committee. We came to the Committee, initially, to give an opening statement. That was before the changes to the Committee membership. At the most recent meeting that we attended, my opening statement covered the matters to be discussed that day and those that we did not get through, which we will cover today. Those previous remarks are recorded in Hansard, and I have nothing to add to them. I am happy to take questions.

Thank you for your comments on the letter that we provided, which hopefully answers the questions that we could not answer at our previous in-person appearance at the Committee. We will endeavour to answer all that we can today. Anything that we cannot answer today, we will, of course, follow up on in writing.

You will note that the panel has changed slightly. I am here again, but, because the Bill is so wide-ranging, spanning many aspects of policing, it is important that the Committee gets to hear about its constituent parts from the relevant subject-matter experts. You have heard about biometrics from Jeff Logan and about the Vagrancy Acts and other parts from Jacqui Gillespie. Today, I have with me Chief Inspector Gerry Doherty from our justice department. Gerry is the chief officer delegate for AccessNI requests, which is a very important role, and a subject-matter expert in that for the PSNI. Gary is the lead of our criminal justice branch, and so he leads on matters that are relevant to the children's provisions of the Bill as well as custody and so on. Hopefully, between the three of us, we will be able to suitably answer your questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thanks very much for not having a spiel to read out when you did not think that you needed one; that is good for the sake of time.

I invite Committee members to ask questions on the "Children" piece, which is Part 2 of the Bill.

I will kick off, Anthony, starting on the children's bail piece. Clause 4 states:

and mentions having due regard to:

Elsewhere, it mentions "capacity", but I cannot see where that reference is. How would a custody officer measure a child's maturity?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is a good question to start, and one to which we have given significant consideration. As it stands, the codes require a custody sergeant to consider matters:

That is the current consideration. On the one hand, one could form the view that those matters are already considered by the fact that a custody sergeant is to consider all matters relevant, but you will, as you have rightly articulated, note that that has been extrapolated to a degree. The Bill has lasered in on the three areas of the juvenile's age, maturity and needs under clause 4(e)(i) and capacity under clause 4(e)(ii). We have written to the Department to seek clarity on the very question that you raise. The Department's position is that there is probably an expectation that that could and should be done anyway, but, from a policing point of view, it gives rise to my thinking, "Why are we specifying those three areas? What are we trying to capture when we talk particularly about age, maturity and needs and capacity?".

We were advised by the Department that Police Scotland has such provisions in its legislation. We have spoken to Police Scotland about how it interprets it. I am advised that it does not have any specific policy on it. Therefore, I have sought internally to take the views of colleagues who are asked to do it on a day-to-day basis; by that, I mean our custody sergeants and our custody inspectors. Of interest and, perhaps, of slight concern is that there were somewhat differing views from those custody sergeants. There was no consistent position on how someone would assess capacity or maturity, although some valid points were raised by our custody sergeants.

You may or may not know that we have progressed over the past number of years in that we have, in the custody environment, nurse practitioners — healthcare practitioners — who can help us to make that assessment. For a child, there is a requirement to have an appropriate adult present, and that person might help to make the assessment, as might the likes of the child's solicitor. However, given the fact that we have struggled to nail it down, even amongst ourselves as a team, having thought about it, we ask again that the Department consider giving further clarity on that. The one that concerns me the most is "capacity". When I think about capacity, I think about someone's mental health capacity, and custody sergeants are not trained mental health practitioners.

It is not insurmountable; it is something that we could work through, but it needs a bit more thought. Perhaps the Department and the police can sit down to discuss it. It is an area because it has been taken out of what was just relevant considerations to focus on those, and that puts the emphasis on a police officer. If a police officer is asked subsequently, "How did you assess that child's capacity?", I want to be in a position to be consistent in how we could answer such a question to you and in other forums.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The existing article 39 really deals with the seriousness of the offence and the history of the person with regard to offences committed in the past, so this is a departure from that, and it adds another layer to it.

If you were happy with the principle of assessing a juvenile's age, maturity and needs, should vulnerability also be a consideration?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: By virtue of the fact that you are considering a child's maturity and capacity, those themselves are aspects of what would lead an officer to determine that someone is vulnerable. Therefore, they are, to a degree, interlinked.

I note that the Department has been helpful by way of responding to us a number of times on that, but it is an area that we still need to finalise. We need to be clear on what the expectation of a custody sergeant is if they are being asked to assess a child's maturity and capacity. There is still a bit of a gap to be closed on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Another aspect to the clauses — it is in clause 5 on police bail after arrest and is sprinkled throughout the Bill — is the issue around the causing of a "serious threat to public order". I am struggling to work out whether that means that the child is a threat to public order or the release of the child could cause public disorder. What is your understanding at this stage?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The important factor to take into consideration — the Department has stressed this — is that it is not about denying a child the right to bail. As we know, there is a presumption that children will get bail. This is about the imposition of a bail condition upon their release. The change is the addition of the requirement around public disorder.

We asked for specific clarity from the Department on that very point, and the feedback that we received from the Department is that it is to consider both. Therefore, it is not only a consideration of a bail condition that the child will become involved in public disorder but whether the release of that child into a community setting will, in and of itself, lead to community unrest. If I were trying to contextualise and operationalise it, that might mean that, if there were disorder in, for example, Fivemiletown tonight, and that child is from Fivemiletown, and the release of that child back into that community may cause further disorder, it may be that the bail condition is that they go somewhere else in order to try to take the heat out of that consideration.

What is really clear, as I interpret it, is that that is for the minimum period of time possible, so that there is the least infringement on that child's rights for that period of time when we believe that disorder may be as a result of them being in a certain community. When that abates, that condition should be lifted.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you. I will open the questioning to members.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you very much for coming back in. I want to touch on the last question that the Chair asked on clause 5. When the departmental officials were here, we asked how that could be interpreted. Some rights organisations have concerns that, if a child is being taken advantage of, they could potentially not be granted bail on the basis that they pose a risk or that the person's release could be prevented as it could cause a serious threat to public order. Does that facilitate those who are coercing children in some instances?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: To clarify, the presumption of bail is not impacted on by the disorder. It is not a consideration as to whether the child should get bail. The child will get bail. The provision kicks in upon the consideration of any relevant bail conditions. Therefore, it will not stop the child getting bail, but it may impact on the circumstances of their bail. The most likely scenario that I can think of is probably where they reside; that is, they do not go back to an area where their presence may be seen to cause a community to be angry and potentially cause disorder. However, the assumption remains that a child gets bail.

Ms Sheerin: You are not concerned about how it would be interpreted operationally.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Nothing really changes in respect of the child getting bail in that regard. We talked previously about the capacity piece. That is a separate piece and an addition. However, in respect of the child getting bail, I believe that it would be operationally feasible for us to apply a condition in relation to public disorder. I cannot imagine that it would be used in very many circumstances. Thankfully, we do not have a lot of serious disorder. Nonetheless, if there were circumstances, very minimal though they may be, that may be a helpful condition that we could use.

Ms Sheerin: With regard to custody settings, where the advice is that children and adults should be separated, is that something that, operationally, you can maintain? Is that feasible?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I will bring Gary in on that one. He may have more in-depth knowledge than I do, but the answer is that it varies. We touched on custody the last time that we were here. We have a mixed economy in respect of custody suites. By that, I mean that we have some very old suites and some very modern ones. Some of our older ones do not allow for the ability to segregate. You might have a row of cells, and it may be that a juvenile is in one cell and an adult is in the next one. That is not ideal, but that is the nature of our police estate. The last time that we were here, I talked through how we are trying to modernise that. There are other areas where we have much more modern suites, particularly Musgrave and Waterside in Derry City and Strabane. Therefore, the answer to your question is that it depends on what custody suite you are talking about.

Ultimately, we will do all we can to make sure that a child who is in custody is there for the shortest time possible and that best care is taken of them. We will use appropriate adults, registered intermediaries and whatever else we need to support that position.

Ms Sheerin: It is not available or possible in some cases purely because of the buildings that you are in.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Not to have them totally segregated in "wings", to use that term; yes, that is the case.

Ms Sheerin: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will just follow up the point about imposing bail conditions as opposed to refusing bail. There is a power in the Bill to refuse a child not police bail but court bail under article 10E. There are two conditions, the first of which is:

The second condition is:

Do you think, even though it is about court bail rather than police bail, that that would work both ways: the child creating the public disorder and the community causing public disorder?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Making the assumption that it applies to police bail — I assume that without being 100% certain of the fact; it is one for the Department — that would be my interpretation of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: Is it OK to raise the minimum age issue at this stage, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No. We will stick to the text of Part 2, on children, and we will come back to the minimum age.

Mr Kingston: That is fine: I will leave it for now.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, gentlemen, for your attendance. I was not here previously when you presented to the Committee, so, if I have a wee bit of catching up to do, you will forgive me.

A child's age is an issue, but there is a particular question about their vulnerability. Who makes the call on that? Say that the child has been involved in something bad, or maybe it was something ridiculous; regardless of what it was, they wind up in custody, but there is an issue, and it is readily seen that the child is vulnerable. Who makes the call as to what is done in that circumstance, particularly if the child has a mental health issue that is likely to be exacerbated by their being in custody?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: For the purpose of giving my colleagues an opportunity to speak, I will say that Gary leads on the justice healthcare provisions that we are introducing in policing. Gary will talk about those and the nurse-led healthcare provision that we now have.

Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Every child who comes through the custody suite is subject to a risk assessment, and that is informed by the nurses whom the ACC referred to and, potentially, if necessary, by a doctor. We have also mentioned the appropriate adult provisions: an adult will be there to look after the child's welfare as they progress through the custody provision. We also have registered intermediaries where there is any sort of challenge in communicating with the child.

That assessment is done at the outset. There is a necessity test, with the decision on the necessity of detaining the child in custody post arrest being made by the custody officer. Once that decision is made, the whole risk assessment takes place. A care plan is subsequently made, and any identified need is addressed in collaboration with the healthcare professionals.

Mr McGlone: Talk me through it. Is that assessment done by the custody sergeant?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, with the input of our healthcare provision.

Mr McGlone: Tell me how that healthcare provision — that professional — slots in, so that that person will be present or readily found, because I am sure that these things could occur at midnight or 1.00 am.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Absolutely. It is a key part of the custody record, so there is a key process that has to be completed: a set list of questions has to be addressed and answered for every person, including a child, who comes through custody. That is worked through from top to bottom. From that process, any risks are identified, and an appropriate care plan is put in place for the duration of custody.

Mr McGlone: I may not be asking the question right. I am trying to work my way through the practicalities of this: a child is taken into custody; the assessment is done by the appropriate officer; and there is an intervention by a healthcare professional, whoever that may be. How does that take place? Presumably, they will not be on call and immediately available in the building at any time of day or night. How does that sequence follow? Are they are on a retainer? How does that work so that, if an evaluation needs to be done by that healthcare professional, they are readily available within an hour or two's notice?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It depends on which custody suite it is. If it is in Musgrave, which is our busiest custody suite in Belfast, or in Antrim or Waterside, the nurses are co-located in the custody suite and available on a 24/7 basis. Those are the three main suites that we have in the Province; they see around 75% of the total detainee population. We are working through the progress of what we call the nurse-led model, which is about having nurses embedded in the custody suites. We are working on getting that into the rest of our custody suites, primarily in the likes of south area, which includes Lurgan and Dungannon. For the vast majority, the nurses are in place. Where they are not, we have GP provision through our forensic medical officers. It depends on the particular demands, and on how quickly they can get to the custody suite, but, in the vast majority of cases, that is happening.

Mr McGlone: You mentioned the 75%, but I live in an area that is part of the other 25%. Is there no provision in those custody suites at the moment?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I can give you some assurance in that regard. I would have liked to be sitting here telling you that it was complete, but part of the problem was a refurb of our biggest suite in your part of the world, which is Omagh. I am told that, by May or June at the absolute latest, it will be a nationwide service, with an embedded nurse with 24/7 availability. I caveat that: the nurse will be 24/7, but they will work between Omagh and Dungannon. They might be in Omagh, but, if a child gets booked into custody, in half an hour's time, they will drive there.

Mr McGlone: They would not want to be caught speeding. [Laughter.]

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: If they are not speeding, they will not.

We are working towards that roll-out. It has been delayed for longer than we would like because of circumstances beyond our control. There have been lots of difficulties with trying to bring some of our old custody suites up to modern standards. However, we assure you that, by the summer of this year, if a child is in custody, they will have on-site, or within half an hour's travel from another suite, access to a nurse or healthcare practitioner.

Mr McGlone: Thank you. I have other questions, Chair, but they fall under different brackets.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. I will come back to you.

Mr McGlone: Thank you.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for your attendance here today and for your presentation.

What guidance is available to you to implement that sort of care right across Northern Ireland in a standardised way? For instance, if I misbehave in, say, Warrenpoint, how do I get to the Waterside suite? How many of your officers does it take to get me there, and what amount of time and money is spent on doing that? Will there be a nurse or doctor available? You have partly answered that.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Is the question about whether, if you are in Waterside, you will have access to a nurse?

Mr Bradley: No. If I am arrested in Warrenpoint — somewhere far away from the three centres that you mentioned — how much time would it take to get me from there to Waterside, Antrim or wherever? How many men would be required to get me there? What about the fact that those officers would be out of action during that journey? Has that been factored into the Bill?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I am not sure about the direct relevance of time. If anyone is arrested, they will be taken to the first available custody suite. If you were arrested in Warrenpoint, you would probably go to Lurgan. That is the most likely place, assuming that there is availability. That is just standard practice. There are times when, if someone is arrested in Ballymena, Antrim might be full, and so we have to go to Waterside or Belfast or whatever. That is just the nature of policing. However, we try to manage our custody provision. We do a lot of in-depth analysis around our peak demands and times. We try to make sure that we have our maximum capacity: that no place is closed for cleaning or whatever and that our staffing levels are appropriate to make sure that we can open to our maximum capacity at any given time.

We touched on this when we were here previously: in a utopian world, would you want a custody suite in every town, so that you did not have to drive 40 miles to the nearest custody suite? Maybe you would, but maybe you would not. Ultimately, however, we have a budget within which we work. Our view is probably akin to that of the health world in that there have to be economies of scale and you manage your budget as best you can. Our current view is that we will probably, some time in the future, look to amalgamate some custody suites around Lurgan, Omagh, Dungannon and another location yet to be confirmed — possibly Mahon Road, Portadown — and build the most modern suite. That goes back to Emma's question about being able to ensure that we have the appropriate facilities to separate out females, children, those with vulnerabilities and so on.

It is a simple fact of life that, if someone is arrested and we have to drive to a custody suite that is 30 miles away, that is the reality of policing in the current environment, which is not particularly different from what you see when you look at the closure of fire stations or hospitals. It is just the reality that we live in. However, we do our best to get to the nearest custody suite and to ensure that we uphold that person's human rights and provide them with the best care while they are in our detention.

Mr Bradley: I take your point, but it still does not negate the necessity for the loss of officers on the crime beat. Councils always get tasked with burying people, lifting bins and sweeping streets. It is the same for the police: you are tasked with catching criminals and preventing crime. Through the Bill, however, the PSNI is expected to take on more and more duties that are not really related to its core operation, which is crime and criminality. I have a worry that we are diluting the Police Service of Northern Ireland, making it less of a police service rather than a police force.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Is there a specific aspect in the Bill that —?

Mr Bradley: I would like to know what your thoughts are on the ever increasing role of the police officer in the community in health and mental health instead of the core practice of crime and criminality.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As I see it, the fundamental role of the police is not to deal with criminality but to prevent crime and to work with the community to do that. Of course, as you rightly said, when crime happens, it is our job to uphold the law. There is no doubt that policing has become more complex. It has been well documented by our Chief Constable and senior team that we have seen a reduction in police numbers over the years to what is an unsustainable level, because we can see the lack of visibility that we have in communities around neighbourhood policing. You all know that well. That is why the Chief Constable set an aim to have 7,000 officers. Although that is still a matter for confirmation through the relevant political processes, it is good to see a recognition that we need to get back to 7,000 officers as an absolute minimum. As we refer to it, that is a recovery plan; it is not a growth plan. It is recovery to what is the bare minimum that we really should be at in order to do the jobs that we need to do.

On the ever widening role of the police, we have recognised and articulated that, which is why we have the Right Care, Right Person programme. That is probably more embedded in England and Wales than here in Northern Ireland, albeit it is making progress, and we hope that we will start to see the fruits of that in actual delivery over the coming months and years. That programme of work has been ongoing for the past two years and has received significant input from the police. Lots of subgroups are looking at areas such as mental health, people going missing from hospitals and so forth — areas where policing becomes involved and, arguably, maybe should not have to. I am not here to criticise others. What I am grateful for is that there is a collective will and desire through the Right Care, Right Person programme to try to recalibrate the role of policing, particularly as an interface with Health colleagues.

I will finish where I started and say that we very much welcome the fact that there is a recognition that we need to regrow to 7,000 officers, but I reiterate that that is recovery. That should really be only the start, and we need to go much above that.

Mr Bradley: Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: I want to focus on clause 8 regarding accommodation needs.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Children's?

Ms Ferguson: Yes, and not automatically refusing bail because a child does not have suitable accommodation. What is the current collaboration in meeting the bail and accommodation needs of children and young people?

I know that the Minister will not go forward with the change until there is a suitable time, but I am trying to get an idea of what it is like at the minute and, if it were to be implemented tomorrow, what impact it would have on you, what would be required and what change would need to happen for you to be able to ensure that the accommodation needs of the child or young person are met.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I will start, and Gary may be able to go into some of the finer detail. As you know, it is not being introduced at this stage. That is due to a lack of suitable accommodation at this time. Obviously, that is not an ideal position for us to be in. I am just trying to find the impact in that area in my notes. I think that it is Province-wide. In an average month, the number of juveniles that we have in custody at the end of the day and into the night-time is 13. The number transferred to the juvenile justice centre is nine. The primary reason why the others are not transported there is lack of staff in the alternative accommodation that has been identified. That is not a position that we want to be in. We do not want to keep children in a police station any longer than absolutely necessary. That has been well documented. I believe that we have discussed that here previously. We would very much welcome the progress of that provision, because the sooner we can do that and no longer have to keep children in custody, the better. We would welcome that.

Another aspect is that it is in the night-time. I have had this conversation with colleagues, particularly in Waterside. You are quite a distance away from the provision. At 5.00 am, what is the right thing to do? Is it to let the child sleep for a couple of hours, or is it to put them in a car and drive them two and a half hours up the road? There are lots of complexities around that. Whether there is one centre or multiple centres — my understanding is that it is more likely to be one — we will still have to work through some of those challenges.

The other question is this: whose responsibility is it to take them there? Is it the responsibility of the police or someone else? You might guess my view: it is someone else's responsibility. It should not be for the police because — to go back to Mr Bradley's point — it would be much better for us to get back out on patrol. There is a significant body of work to do on that. I suspect that that is why it has not been progressed at this stage; we are just not in a position to take it forward. Gary, is there anything that you want to add?

Ms Ferguson: Can you confirm that it is the police's responsibility and that, once a decision has been made, it is your responsibility to transport them, that they are still in your care and not in the care of social services or anyone else?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is the present custom and practice.

Ms Ferguson: Right.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It is an area of concern for us. We audit it monthly. The number of occasions that we keep a juvenile overnight is very low, because, obviously, we seek to minimise that. Since we started auditing in June 2025, there has been about one occasion per month where we would have difficulty in making a transfer due to staffing issues, as the ACC said.

Ms Ferguson: Staffing issues in the accommodation.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: From your experience of working in the field for a long time, do you think that that will continue into the foreseeable future? What are your thoughts? From your collaboration with others over the years, where do you think we are? Is it one year, three years or five years? What is the foreseeable future? I would like to get an idea, because I am concerned. Ideally, we would like that to be put in place, given the numbers. We know the numbers, generally, and what is required.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I guess that, from our experience, input and discussions on it, it is not imminent. I stand to be corrected by Department of Health and Department of Justice colleagues, but I do not envisage anything within the next 18 months. It will need significant change in the accommodation approach, requiring cross-departmental work. Work is ongoing in that space. However, I am not personally close enough to it to give a definitive answer. It is certainly a question that we, or you, could ask the Department. I think that we would all agree that the sooner we can prevent children being held in custody for any longer than necessary, the better.

Mr Kingston: I do not want to labour the point, but I am trying to work out the problem that clause 8(1) seeks to address. It allows some discretion where the custody officer:

That applies if there is a concern about releasing a juvenile. It goes on to say that the custody officer, however:

just because there is no accommodation. You might have a situation where a juvenile is arrested and the approval of bail comes through. First, are you satisfied that that wording, "may consider" would not compel the custody officer to release the juvenile immediately if they have concerns? If the child were sleeping, the thought could be that the child would be allowed to sleep until the morning. If there were nowhere safe for the child to go to where an incident had happened at their normal home, they might be trying to find a relative or another safe place. Are you aware of what issue the clause is trying to solve? Are you satisfied that there is at least still some discretion whereby a custody officer would not be compelled to release someone in the middle of the night just because of that clause?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I am content. While we talk about taking the juvenile's accommodation needs into account, that might mean that they want to remain closer to their home town, for example, or to family members. However, it may be that that is not possible or appropriate because of the seriousness of the matter. I think that it is just saying that a custody sergeant may take their needs into consideration, but that is not the sole motivation. We will place them in a place that we feel is appropriate. I suppose that it is about recognising that the needs of the child should be taken into consideration. Operationally, I do not see any particular challenges with that, and I do not feel that it places a custody officer in a difficult position.

Mr Kingston: The Bill states that the custody officer:

Who would be demanding to be released? Would it be the child or juvenile saying that they want to be released or their legal representatives?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is in the context. They must not refuse bail purely because of accommodation requirements.

Mr Kingston: Because they do not have somewhere safe to go.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes. Or somewhere where they want to go.

Mr Kingston: The child might say, "No. My bail has come through". Even if the custody officer had concerns for their safety and about where the juvenile would be going in the middle of the night, they could demand to be released if bail had come through.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Can you explain to me what happens when the child or juvenile has committed a very serious offence? You are talking about their being automatically bailed. What happens when an individual has been involved in something very bad? If they have done something very bad, there is a strong possibility that, if they are let out, they will do it again and maybe do worse. How are such incidences filtered through the system?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There is a presumption of bail; however, it is a presumption not a right. If, for example, the offence is murder, manslaughter or rape, it may well be, based on the circumstances of the offence aggravating factors, the modus operandi and so on, that bail is not appropriate. There are occasions where children will not get bail and those conditions will not be met.

Mr McGlone: Can you talk me through what happens in those instances? I presume and hope that those are very few. In the few instances where that might happen, what process is followed?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is where they are remanded into a custody setting, and that, again, goes back to the point about suitable accommodation and related factors. They will be remanded into the juvenile custody provisions and managed accordingly in a similar way that an adult would be remanded into adult custody.

Mr McGlone: Can you explain to me how different juvenile custody provisions are from adult custody provisions, both in how they operate and the type of suite, if you want to call it that, that the younger person would be put into?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: If we do not want to bail the juvenile because of the seriousness of the offence — that is covered under article 39 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 — we can charge them in the same way that we can charge an adult. The child will then be charged at the next available court sitting within 28 days. Then, depending on what happens at court, they will either be remanded or released with court bail conditions. If they are remanded, they will go to a juvenile justice centre.

Mr McGlone: I am trying to establish what happens in the intervening 28-day period if they have committed an offence.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: They could be released with bail conditions. I think that your initial question was —.

Mr McGlone: What if they are not, because they are deemed to be a risk?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: There will be a court sitting the next day.

Mr McGlone: Under what circumstances are they held? That is what I am trying to discern.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: They would be held in a custody suite. We would seek to move them, but if we cannot do that, because of staffing issues or availability, they would stay in the custody suite, pending their court appearance the next morning.

Mr McGlone: That brings me back to my question about the custody suite. In what way does it differ from that in which an adult is held? How do the supervision circumstances for a juvenile differ from those for an adult? Perhaps they do not.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It depends on the custody suite. We will not always have separate provision for children in a custody suite. If that is the case, they will go to a cell.

Mr McGlone: Do the supervision circumstances differ in any way?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Again, we go back to the risk assessment. There will be review periods built in. The custody staff will have built-in review periods during the detention, and there will be built-in inspector reviews to ensure that all the needs of the child are met.

Mr McGlone: How does that provision compare with that for an adult?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It is the same, but there will be additional provisions, such as having an appropriate adult or a registered intermediary there. There will be enhanced provisions for the child while they are there.

Mr McGlone: That is grand. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is worth bearing in mind that, whilst clause 5 amends article 39, it retains the language of the existing article. Clause 5(5) refers to:

and four other aspects. The language used in article 39 has been retained in the new provisions. The seriousness of the offence will still come into play, which, by right, it should.

If there are no further questions —.

Ms Ferguson: I have one further question. I am trying to differentiate between a child and a vulnerable neurodiverse 13-year-old girl who may have a range of complex mental health issues. Your risk assessment through the nurse-led approach will be able to identify her health needs. How effectively are such needs being met? Some of them may need to be met within 24 hours through medication, for example. I am curious to know how wider health needs are being met through the nurse-led approach. Have there been any issues or challenges?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: They are being met very well. We did an interim evaluation of the nurse-led model. Medical and healthcare interventions and referrals are all now done in the custody suite, whereas before we would have had to call a doctor or send somebody to an emergency department, for example. The number of healthcare interventions and support that detainees get now through the nurse-led model has attracted excellent feedback across the board.

Ms Ferguson: That is good.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I will add two points. Gary is absolutely right: if someone's needs are so acute that we cannot manage them, we will take the person to hospital. The custody clock will stop during the time that they are in hospital. We can detain someone for up to 24 hours. If there is a requirement to take them to hospital in hour six, the clock will stop. It does not matter how long they remain in hospital — it could be an hour or a day. When they return to police custody, the clock will start again at six hours.

We are happy to share the fact that we have just developed specific guidance on dealing with female detainees of all ages — not just younger detainees but those of childbearing or menopausal age — because we recognise that there will be different considerations for different subsets of females. We have developed a specific policy for how to enhance our care services to females when they are in our detention.

Ms Ferguson: That is good to hear. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We move on to Part 4, "Administration of justice". I am not sure that there will be many questions on that Part because we have not really had much debate on or controversy about its issues. One issue that I would raise is sort of a wee quirky area because some might argue that it concerns biometrics. There is an argument about whether a photograph constitutes biometrics. The Minister of Justice proposes an amendment to insert a new clause 23A in Part 4: "Powers to photograph certain persons at a police station", which inserts a new schedule setting out who may and who may not be photographed. Is there anything in that that alarms you guys in a judicial or practical sense?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We have no legislative concerns, but, as we discussed last time, there may be issues with the practicalities of taking biometrics. Let us assume, for the purposes of this conversation, that photographs are biometrics. How do we do that outside the custody environment? We talked last time, when Jacqui Durkin was here, about how we are developing voluntary attender suites where we can bring people in for interview and how we are looking at modernising those to consider how we would take fingerprints, DNA and photographs in them. That is an operational piece that we are working through.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is the new clause 23B.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, but you have no issues with the new powers about who you can photograph in a police station?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You are happy enough. Do members want to ask about Part 4? Do not worry if you have no questions. That is fine. We can move on. We do not need to ask questions for the sake of it. If no one wants to come in, that is fine.

We will move on to Part 5, "Final provisions", which, again, probably will not exercise too many people, other than my question about clause 8 "Considerations relevant to bail: accommodation", which we have already discussed — about not having adequate accommodation for a juvenile getting bail. At the minute, there is no commencement order on that, so it is sitting in abeyance. The question is whether there should be a commencement order, even a delayed one, in order to apply pressure on the powers that be to have adequate and suitable accommodation for juveniles.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As I said, I do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge of where exactly we are with that, so I could not possibly respond at this stage. However, if you would like to put that in writing to myself or the Department, I will be happy follow up on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No, I am happy enough. It is more for the Department, to be fair. You are not responsible for providing accommodation.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We are perhaps a user of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I just thought that you might want to have a say, but it is absolutely fine if you do not.

Members, moving on to the "AccessNI Filtering" proposed amendment. This is not in the Bill; it is one of the proposed amendments from the Minister. Does anyone have any questions on it?

Regarding the work of the protected disclosure unit, and the interaction with the AccessNI team and the independent reviewer, what is your understanding of how that will work? If there is a case where information is removed from the AccessNI certificates, and that power will not rest with the police as far as I know, what are the dynamics?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Gerry will come in here, but, as you know, there are three levels of checks within the AccessNI arena: the basic, the standard, and the enhanced. The standard and enhanced are where we come in. It is important to state that, under article 113 or 117 of the Police Act 1997, Gerry, in his role, has the power to disclose certain aspects that may have become a spent conviction or there may be other material that is not even relevant to a conviction, for example, a domestic abuse history that may be relevant.

We are content that we have the authority to have suitable input in those arenas in which someone is likely to be working with children. Gerry is our SME in the area, so I will pass to him if he wishes to add to that.

Chief Inspector Gerry Doherty (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Yes. Maybe there is a more in-depth explanation. My role and that of my department is primarily about the safeguarding of vulnerable people and children. It sits separately from but alongside the AccessNI provisions.

The proposed amendments to the Bill might impact AccessNI and the filtering scheme; filtering is only ever done by AccessNI. As the ACC stated, there are three levels of checks that an individual can apply for: basic, standard, and enhanced. The police are not involved in a basic check; AccessNI does that on its own. We become involved when an application for a standard or enhanced check is submitted by the individual. After it has done its initial checks, AccessNI automatically sends the application to us to see whether we hold any additional information.

When it comes to the operational practicalities of how the amendments and a new filtering process might work, AccessNI may remove an offence or conviction that would previously have gone on to the certificate, but that will be done separately from my role. The changes are to remove low-level offending from certificates so that AccessNI does not over-share, but my role under section 113B is separate from that. I will take a more holistic view of other information that the police may hold, such as when people might not have been convicted of an offence but we have had dealings with them, and information is available to us. I will take an holistic approach to that and ask, "Does that, in its entirety, have an impact on the role that the individual is applying for, and is there a risk to the vulnerable person or the child?" If I believe that there is such a risk, it is within my power to disclose that information to the applicant and AccessNI.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is important to state that there is a degree of crossover with the rehabilitation of offenders and the reduction in retention periods. Offences that might previously have stayed on the certificate as disclosable will come off earlier and not be disclosed because of the reduction in periods as part of the rehabilitation of offenders.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. I will ask whether members have questions on AccessNI and pair that with the rehabilitation of offenders; that would cover those issues. Does anyone have any questions on either AccessNI filtering or the rehabilitation of offenders? No? OK. Members are content.

We will move on to the planned amendments on restorative justice. There is some controversy about the use, or lack of use, of community resolution notices (CRNs) and their purpose. What are your views on the amendments? It is about the work of restorative justice, the use of community resolution notices and their going to the bodies that perform restorative justice.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Gary has been doing a lot of work on the expansion of community resolution notices. You will be aware of the recent consultation on penalty notices, which are another disposal that sits outside the court environment. Gary has been doing a lot of work with the Department of Justice on that. As I said at the previous meeting, we do not want to see people reoffend, and, if there are opportunities to prevent that through restorative justice practices, whether they involve a community resolution notice or the new scheme, we will support them. That is why we are looking to expand our work with the Department in relation to the new providers.

To answer your question on concerns about community resolution notices, Gary can explain how those were introduced, their purpose, and what we perceive to be their benefits.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: The first thing to say is that the two are unconnected. They have been caught up together in conversation, so maybe a bit of clarity is required. Community resolution notices have been in policing for some time. They are a very effective way of dealing with some lower-level offending. There is an approved offences set, and there is an approval mechanism so that community resolution notices have supervisor approval before they are issued.

They are dip-sampled, for example, with the Public Prosecution Service. You asked about underuse: we use them about 700 times a month. Those are 700 cases where we have assessed them to be suitable to deal with lower-level offending rather than simply prosecuting everybody and taking them to court. That is a kind of stand-alone mechanism that has been at police disposal for some time. It is set aside from the new restorative justice approach described in the Bill.

In respect of that, a pilot will be up and running across a number of policing districts from the end of March that looks to use the new accredited organisations, for example, in restorative justice, but is outside the CRN process. That is another tool at our disposal in appropriate cases that we believe, in consultation with the victim, and taking into account the circumstances of the case, might be appropriate for restorative justice practice. That will be a different process from the CRN process. It will go the hub and be allocated to an appropriate provider.

As I say, that will all be done after the decision by PPS. It does not necessarily impact the investigation from a policing perspective: a full and robust investigation still needs to be conducted that pursues all lines of inquiry. The decision is made at the end of the investigation. The recommendation will then go to the prosecution service. If it agrees, it will go for further restorative justice work. That is what is essentially being dealt with under the Justice Bill. The CRN is separate from that. Hopefully, that helps with regard to the CRN.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Have you any concerns about the new accreditation system? The work that has been done on restorative justice to date, over the past decade and more, is limited to a number of bodies. What is happening now is that we are spreading that out geographically and also to bodies — or persons, I should say — who can be accredited. Is there not a fear that a person could become accredited and then employ other people who are not accredited whose characters may have suspicions around them? Is there a concern there?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I totally accept the point about accreditation and post-accreditation. However, as you will know, there are safeguards in place for the inspection regime and the role of Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI) in itself. There will be a body — I think that it comprises three individuals, from memory — that will oversee and be independent arbiters of the scheme. Then you have the formal role of Criminal Justice Inspection. I would like to think that, with those appropriate safeguards that the Department has sought to put in place, that would alleviate any concerns and deal with any that arise appropriately and robustly.

From our perspective, it is fair to say that the broadening of it and — you mentioned geographical spread, and it is not to say that those other organisations did not work geographically — the wider the expanse across Northern Ireland, the better. Over the years, I have had that conversation about many aspects of policing: that the service that you get depends on where you live. We see it as an opportunity to ensure that that is not the case and that the service is consistently applied. We will certainly work with the Department to ensure that that is the case.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Have you any thoughts on the new scale of accreditation? The question could be posed that we do not need the lower tier and that we should just go with the status quo, if that is the case. Have you any concerns about the three tiers, as I think there are now?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I think that there is space for restorative justice where, perhaps, the criminal threshold is not met and the PSNI is not always involved. However, we are quite relaxed about that. There is the space for community issues that may not have passed the criminal threshold or been reported to the police to be dealt with at a restorative justice level, and, likewise, for lower-end and more serious crime. For the more serious end, we welcome the fact that there are additional responsibilities for those who deal with more complex crimes. For the lower-end crime, however, we are quite relaxed about that.

Ms Ferguson: I have a wee follow-up question on the 700 CRNs. Is there any disparity across the North in being able to utilise CRNs based on the availability of organisations? Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I think that I saw it advertised recently that organisations would get £250 for each person whom they mentor and support through a 16-week programme. Is that right, or have I got that confused with something else?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I am not sure about the financial side of it, to be honest.

Ms Ferguson: Right. Who leads on community restorative notices once a decision is made?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is for the police to determine whether a CRN will be issued, albeit — this is really important — the views of the victim absolutely must, and will, be taken into consideration. Our policy was amended to that effect about three years ago. It is fair to say that the first iteration was probably not so clear on that, but it is now. The victim's views will be taken into account, absolutely. CRNs are administered and managed by us, and they include such opportunities as our being able to ask, "Will you agree to apologise to the victim?". If someone has smashed a window, we will ask, "Will you repair the window?", and so on. It is about low-level offending. CRNs are managed by us, and they are available for use. All police officers across Northern Ireland will use and have used them. As Gary said, they are used in about 800 cases a year.

Ms Ferguson: A month.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: A month, sorry. That is 800 cases that do not clog up the court system.

Ms Ferguson: I fully support the use of CRNs. Are there ones whereby an individual has to do a 10-week placement for a certain number of hours in the community, which community organisations oversee. Could that be part of CRNs?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: We are starting to look at that. There is probably a little bit of confusion here. A CRN can be issued without the need for any restorative justice agency to be involved.

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There was a pilot that initially looked at potentially using a CRN disposal for a restorative justice process in north and west Belfast, but that was a small pilot area. More broadly, as the ACC referenced, CRNs can be used for getting an apology, repairing damage and all of that. That can be dealt with at district level.

The other question that you asked was about the finance side and how that works. As I said, I am not sure. For example, we have an upcoming pilot in the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area on the use of drugs and the possession of a small amount of drugs that potentially involves people being able to do a drug awareness course as part of a community resolution notice disposal. You could argue that that is restorative justice, but it is not necessarily restorative justice through the new restorative justice scheme.

Ms Ferguson: If there is more information available, it would be useful for us to know what the types of CRNs are and how they work.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There is a very specific list. We are happy to share it.

Ms Ferguson: If you can share that information with us, we can differentiate between it and the new restorative justice scheme. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We now move on to the last set of planned amendments from the Department, which are the amendments on serious organised crime. First, why do we need those new laws? Are the laws that we currently have on organised crimes not sufficient?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: At the minute, there is no offence of being a member of an organised crime gang, but, obviously, people may be prosecuted for drugs importation, extortion, blackmail or whatever it may be. If there are two or more people involved, it is likely to be joint enterprise or conspiracy, hence why the proposed amendment to the Bill states, "three or more". My understanding of that is that it would cover that broad grouping. We welcome the two aspects — directing and participating in criminal activities — in the proposed amendments, because that presents an opportunity.

It is also particularly important to consider the cross-border aspect, for directing and for participating. To contextualise it, take the example of drugs. Someone in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere could be working in concert with two individuals in the North to carry out drugs importation and drugs facilitation. At the minute, we have no means of dealing with them as an organised crime group. Through the amendments, we would, so we very much welcome them.

The amendments are linked to financial and material gain, which, again, makes it quite clear for us as to how we would target our use of the provisions. We consider being able to have the offence of participating in criminal activities and then, layered on top, the offence of directing criminal activities as being beneficial, particularly as the proposed amendments allow us to look at things on a cross-border basis.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): This has just occurred to me, and I genuinely do not know the answer. Why can you not use proscribed organisation legislation for a criminal gang?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The reason is that they may not be affiliated to a particular group. I speculate that there are a number of groups —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I suppose that a proscribed organisation is an organisation that people know of.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is a very defined list.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): A criminal gang could spring up, and you may not be aware of its activities.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There could be four people involved — two in the North and two in the South — who have no connection to any proscribed organisation, but here is a means by which we can now target them as an organised crime gang.

Ms Sheerin: What changes do you foresee the amendments making to how you work cross-border with the gardaí? You touched on that in your initial explanation. Do you think that there will be an improvement?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I think that cross-border working will be enhanced. We already have a cross-border strategy. We recognise that we have a very porous border with the Republic of Ireland, given the road network and the ability for people to travel across the border and carry out crime.

I hasten to add that the proposed amendments will allow us to do that work not just with the Republic of Ireland but with anywhere outside Northern Ireland. We are all aware of other locations where the media speculate that drug barons live, so the amendments allow us to be able to work with other international agencies where we need to. Ultimately, however, if we can prove that someone in another part of the world is working with people in Northern Ireland, we can, as a minimum, deal with the people in Northern Ireland.

Ms Sheerin: Do you think that the cross-border element of that relationship is working well? Drugs come to mind in particular.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: With the Republic of Ireland, we have in place a strong cross-border strategy, which gets refreshed annually, and we have a very strong working relationship with the gardaí across the piece, be that on road safety, drugs or whatever it may be. Where we need to link with partners across the United Kingdom and into Europe, we have long-standing arrangements in place through which to do so. In my mind, the amendments therefore only enhance those arrangements, because they mean that we can specifically use the legislation when people are outside of Northern Ireland by being able to deal with the people involved who are here in Northern Ireland. If you therefore have two people here and someone somewhere else, we do not at the minute have the ability to say, "That is an organised crime gang" and be able to pursue them, but under the proposed legislation, we could.

Ms Sheerin: May I ask one follow-up question? Some criticisms of the amendments, particularly from the Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), are around safeguarding of vulnerable people or people who are being exploited. That goes back to the earlier conversation that we had that was specific to young people who are being coerced into crime. Do you share those concerns?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes, absolutely. That is why, between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, ongoing work is being done on child criminal exploitation (CCE). That is very much something to which we are alive.

One hears a lot of talk in England and Wales about county lines and movement of drugs by young people. To my mind, that is child criminal exploitation. In Northern Ireland, we may not see the same prevalence of that because we are a smaller place than England and Wales, but child criminal exploitation is not just about drugs. We see children involved in rioting and other behaviours that we have reason to believe are orchestrated and into which they were coerced or manipulated.

Child criminal exploitation is therefore something to which we are very much alive, and we are looking to ensure that we have an agreed approach to it in Northern Ireland across justice and with health partners and beyond. In fairness, however, it is a work in progress.

Mr Kingston: I welcome the aim of the proposed amendment to tackle organised crime. I want to understand the outworkings of it. Proposed new clause 19A(6) states:

How different is that from current law? If somebody is involved in drug dealing and is located in Northern Ireland, but the drug dealing is happening in another country, does that mean that they can be prosecuted here and do not have to be extradited to here?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Remind me of what you are referring to.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is proposed new clause 19A(6).

Mr Kingston: Does it enhance powers to prosecute people here who are part of an offence that is taking place somewhere else? Do the activities have to constitute an offence in Northern Ireland as well?

I will read it again. The activities:

People may say, "I'm not offending in Northern Ireland", but they are here and are involved in, say, supplying drugs in Spain. Does the clause mean that they can be prosecuted here without being extradited to here?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes, that is my understanding. The point of it is that, where people in different jurisdictions do exactly that — they are working in concert, but one is here — the amendment allows the offence to be classified and for them to be prosecuted.

Mr Kingston: That is good.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How does the new provision sit with the organised crime task force (OCTF)?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The lead for that area of work is our crime operations department, in particular C1, as we call it. The detective superintendent who will lead on that work will link directly into the organised crime task force, so it will all be married within those structures.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No other members have any questions on the planned amendments on serious organised crime.

I will now take you into the world of private Members' amendments, which is the murky world in which we have to operate. The first amendments are on the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Brian, you want to come straight in.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Chair. The proposal is to change the age. It is fair to say that children are already treated differently from adults if involved in a crime. They are dealt with through the Youth Justice Agency and a range of other agencies, including social services. If a child below the MACR is involved in a crime, what role does the PSNI currently play in the criminal justice system's response? If a child is below the minimum age of criminal responsibility, do you have any involvement? I have probably asked that question before.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It very much depends on the circumstances. If there is any concern about, for example, the child's well-being or safeguarding, we have good mechanisms in place with social services. We have the ability to conduct joint protocol investigations. Assessments are made by our public protection branch central referral unit, where all the risk factors for the child's family and any kind of offending by the parents are assessed, and a plan can then be put in place. Ultimately, what the proposed new clause states is that, where there is an allegation of an offence, there will not be a criminal investigation. If there were a safeguarding concern, we would make a referral to social services and ensure that those pathways were met. That would be the end of our involvement, unless, of course, other offending was identified, by the parents or anyone else.

Mr Kingston: I am still not clear about what happens if a crime has been committed. If someone below the minimum age commits what is to all intents and purposes a crime, be that theft, assault or criminal damage, is that classified as a crime? What is your understanding of that if there is a victim of the action and if others are involved?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I probably need to double-check, but I am pretty sure that the crime is classified, so it is recorded as such. There is no criminal investigation, however, by virtue of the child being under the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Mr Kingston: Social services therefore take the lead.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Absolutely, and that is what I meant by a wider assessment being done with social services of what is going on in the child's life to determine whether there are any safeguarding issues. A referral would be made, and we make referrals to social services daily as a result of any kind of contact that we have with children in the course of our duties.

Mr Kingston: It is important that children be dealt with appropriately. This is a question for all of us: if the minimum age of criminal responsibility were to be increased, would you have concerns about the perception that children below that age do not face consequences for their involvement in criminal activity?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Gary will be able to come in on that. It comes down to how you define "consequences". As Gary said, when a crime, be it theft, assault or whatever, has been committed by a child under the age of 10, we often find that there are background circumstances. For example, the child may be neglected and stealing stuff because they are hungry. They may have assaulted somebody in school, having not sleep at night because of circumstances at home, whatever those may be. That is not the case all the time, but, in many circumstances, there are aggravating factors for why children under 10 may come to the attention of the police.

If the minimum age of criminal responsibility were to be raised, the processes that Gary outlined would apply. There would be referrals to social services to look at the child's background and at any vulnerabilities and to put in place all the support infrastructure. That is what many lobby groups want, because it is not about criminalising children but about providing them with support based on their circumstances. That is an understandable position to take, but we cannot ignore the fact that we have also seen children getting involved in rioting. As I said earlier, those children may or may not have been coerced into it. On one of the previous occasions that I was at the Committee, I mentioned the 15-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl who had kicked a man to death in England. We therefore see some very tragic circumstances in which children have been involved in crime, so I understand why there is the argument from some quarters that 14 may be too high a minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Ultimately, it is a debate to be had. As someone who has been on the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) on behalf of the PSNI, I can say that it is hard to get broad agreement on a position. There are many different thoughts and views on the argument. To go back to your question about whether the police would still have a role to play, my answer is that, yes, we would. It is for you as legislators to determine the minimum age, and we will then perform the policing role as effectively and efficiently as we can.

Mr Kingston: My final thought is that we want everyone who is involved in crime to reform themselves and change their future conduct. The criminal justice system should always support people to reform themselves. There is also a punishment element to justice, however, which is there to show people the consequences of their actions and to act as a deterrent to others. My concern is that children, just because they are below a certain age, will be considered not to know what they are doing.

Mr McGlone: I will pick up on that point. You are the practitioners. You are the guys who pick up the pieces whenever things go wrong on the ground, and, in some instances, they go badly wrong. Did I hear you voice reservations about the practicalities of raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I am not taking a position on that or voicing reservations. Rather, I am highlighting, for those who will have to make the decision, some circumstances that may be applicable.

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As a police service, we start from the position that the last thing that we want to do is to criminalise children. Our starting position is therefore to put in place whatever rehabilitative and support infrastructure we can for a child of any age. Whenever children become involved in criminality, we are strongly in favour of the presumption of bail. The rights of the child under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) should come first. As an organisation, that is what we are keen to make sure happens. I am therefore not voicing reservations but highlighting cases in which children under 14 have been involved in crime.

Mr McGlone: I am not seeking to bounce you into saying anything, but you have all been about. You have served at different levels, including as detectives. You have been at the coalface and seen the blunt edge of criminality when things have gone wrong. We all know that those who would have been considered children in our generations are now much more mature, and the activities that they get up to, in some instances, would probably widen our eyes. Right?

Bullying at school, cybercrime and all that sort of stuff goes on, and in a very Machiavellian way in some instances, as you will know.

I am trying to establish the point at which responsibility becomes an issue and the child has developed to the age of knowing what they are doing and therefore being responsible for their actions, taking into account their circumstances, when they appear before the court or are involved with the criminal justice system? What are your experiences of how circumstances may have exacerbated things? In my mind, a child's circumstances probably have exacerbated things.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: From my experience of policing over a reasonable number of years, I suppose that children are like adults in some regards. A very small proportion of children will carry out crime. That is the starting position. You talked about the age of maturity. It almost comes back to the custody perspective, because every child is different. Every child's circumstances are different. Some boys will be different. Some girls will be different. Some boys will be different from other boys because of their maturity and background. Have they attended school? Have they been supported? What are their family circumstances?

I would never be prescriptive about having a certain age at which a child should be considered criminally responsible. There has been a massive variation across the children that I have dealt with in my career. I say that as someone who was the PSNI's head of public protection for four years.

That is probably not the answer that you wanted to hear. I cannot be more definitive, but I think that every child's circumstances are unique to that child. I therefore do not believe that I can give an opinion on putting an age on criminal responsibility. My perspective is that our starting position is that we do not want to criminalise children. At whatever age that is set, we will apply the law accordingly.

Mr McGlone: I was not trying to get you to specify an age. You guys are the practitioners. You have been through the mill. You have been detectives. You have been at the coalface. I was just seeking to learn about your experiences, that is all. Thank you.

Ms Egan: Based on what you see now through your policing role, for children who engage in criminal activity who are currently between the ages of 10 to 14, how prevalent are things such as adverse childhood experiences, vulnerabilities and even coercion or exploitation by criminal gangs? How much of an impact do such things have? How much of a role do they play? How prevalent are such circumstances for children who are convicted of crimes at such a young age?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Thanks for the question. It is very good one, but it is probably one on which I will need to come back to you with an answer. I do not know whether we gather stats in our public protection branch, because CCE, for example, is a relatively new term. Is it present? Yes, it is, but I cannot guess the extent of it, and I do not want to do so and mislead the Committee. If you can specify your question in writing, I will see whether we can get you a more detailed answer rather than have me speculate.

Ms Egan: Yes, if that is OK. Ten is such a young age, and something really must have gone wrong in a child's life for them to be committing serious crimes then. One of the proposed amendments includes exceptions for:

I know that you said that you are not giving a view, but do you think that those are appropriate exceptions to include in the amendment?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I think that inclusion of the more serious offences is entirely appropriate.

Ms Egan: Finally, if the Assembly agrees the proposed new clause in question, will you welcome the inclusion of a review period for the Department of Justice? Will the PSNI be keen to engage with the review as well?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes, absolutely. I think that undertaking a review is important, because we learn through experience. We would welcome a review, and we would be keen to be involved in it, as, ultimately, we are the people who apply the law.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): On Connie's question about the exceptions being:

is there any other offence that you think should be included that is not?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I have not considered the proposed new clause in that context, but I am certainly of the view that the more —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Serious.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: — serious offences should be included, so I am content with it, having reviewed it.

Mr Beattie: Thank you to you and your team. Part of my first question is in the same area as Connie's question, so you may not be able to answer it, but I can add to her question. Do not feel as though you have to answer it, however. I am trying to ask for facts rather than just your opinion. What are the serious crime trends among 10- to 14-year-olds? What are we seeing at the minute from that younger age group, particularly given that extreme pornography is driving a lot of what is happening?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I will have to get the stats for you, but, as you would expect, it is primarily about lower-level offending, not about murder, manslaughter and so on. A portion of offending by children is against other children, so we receive a reasonable amount of third-party referrals. Say, for example, that two children fight in the playground or that one takes the other's school bag. We get a lot of referrals that are about such child-on-child things. Our public protection branch will, I hope, provide us with more granular detail on that, but, based on my experience, my assessment is that it is about lower-level offending.

Mr Beattie: I am just trying to understand the crime trends among 10- to 14-year-olds. I guarantee that I know what the crime trends among children of up to the age of 10 — they really are about lower-level offences — but I am seeing an increase in things happening among people aged between 10 and 14, particularly among those aged between 12 and 14. It would therefore be really useful to get the stats.

How do you deal with this, for example? We have talked about adults exploiting children, but what happens if a parent is exploiting their child? What if a parent does something wrong and gets their 13-year-old to take the rap for it? You are not allowed to interview that 13-year-old to be able to say to them, "It was you" or, "It wasn't you", because the parent has to give permission for you to interview them. Is that correct?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: No, strictly speaking, it is not. If a child is in custody, they have the right to have an appropriate adult with them. The appropriate adult does not necessarily have to be a parent. If we have reason to interview the child, we will do so.

Mr Beattie: Does that mean that you are allowed to arrest somebody who is under the minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Sorry, is your question about somebody under the age of 10? I thought that you were talking about —.

Mr Beattie: If we were to move the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14, for example —.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: No. We would not be allowed to make an arrest.

Mr Beattie: You cannot arrest them to interview them, so how do you interview them if the parent says no?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I suppose that, if we were to believe that that was happening, it would come under a broader type of investigation, for neglect or child abuse. If we were to believe that the parent was doing what you said, the parent would become the suspect, while the child would become the victim. In conjunction with social services, we would put in place an appropriate victim strategy in order to extract the evidence and interview the parent. The investigation would therefore be conducted in that context. If we were to think that the child was being pushed into crime by the parent, that would very much bring the parent into the criminal sphere, and it would then become a broader child abuse investigation.

Mr Beattie: May I flip the example a little bit? I am trying to understand better. Say that we make the minimum age of criminal responsibility 14. If there is a crime in which, you believe, a 13-year-old has committed rape, but that 13-year-old says, "No, it wasn't me", there is still a victim, so we still need to find out what happened in case the crime was committed by somebody else. You want to interview them, if only to remove them from your list of suspects, but the 13-year-old has said, "No, it wasn't me". If there is no permission for you to interview them, how therefore do you go about finding out information from them?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: There is nothing to stop us from reaching out to have that conversation and get the information from the person by treating them as a witness or by another way, but you are right: we would not be able to arrest them in order to do that. We would, however, be able to have a conversation at least and get that information.

Mr Beattie: You would be able to have the conversation with the suspect.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes.

Mr Beattie: Would you be able to have it even without the parent's permission?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: No. That would be more challenging.

Mr Beattie: That is why there is concern. When it is about children up to the age of 10, I get it, but there is a grey area for children between the ages of 10 and 14 as they move into a more technological world. I will not go into any more depth on that now.

I will now ask you a very simple question. If you consider the system as it is right now, do you feel that it is lacking anything? I am with you, in that I do not want to criminalise any children.

I am not seeing any children being criminalised. Does the present system work? Do you have concerns about it?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: The present system delivers a proportionate justice system for children. There are all the additional safeguards for children who are going through the criminal justice system, and we have outlined some of them today, including appropriate adults and registered intermediaries. We have youth diversion officers who review investigations, and the appropriate recommendations are then made. There are different disposal mechanisms for children who are involved in crime, including informed warnings and youth conferences. That whole youth justice infrastructure is there. We work closely with the Department on that. That is just stating the facts. That is just saying that the infrastructure is different from that of the adult criminal justice system to take account of the fact that they are children.

Mr Beattie: Does it work, Gary?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Like any system, it has issues.

Mr Beattie: I am really sorry, Chair: this is my last last question. If we were to move the age of criminal responsibility to 14, would the fact that the age of criminal responsibility in the Irish Republic is 12 create any issues regarding people involved in crime with a cross-border element?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, it could displace the crime. If there is a higher threshold here, there could be movement. That stands to reason.

Mr Beattie: Are we seeing that now? At the moment, the age is 10 here and 12 there, so it is the other way around.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: We will need to check that.

Mr Beattie: OK. I am just trying to get a sense of it. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you. Good questions and good answers.

When Youth Justice Agency representatives were here, they said that, at the minute, they can deal and work with 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds, 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds who end up in trouble with the law. They shared their concern that they would not then be able to work with 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds and said that, when those young people got to 14 and 15, it would, in some cases, be too late. Do you have a similar concern?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: If it were to be moved, there would need to be a clear alternative in place for managing those children and for what their rehabilitation looks like to prevent reoffending and reduce harm. The appropriate resources would also need to be in place for that.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Going back to Mr Beattie's question, it would require a review of the current arrangements because, if the age is being raised, what do you do for that section? As you rightly highlight, there is a fundamental difference in the maturity of someone who is 10 and that of someone who is 13 and three quarters.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Surely, social services would enter that void.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: If the decision went down that route, the first thing that we would ask is about what infrastructure is there. Ultimately, as we said, our role is to prevent crime, and we know that, once people have committed a crime, they are much more likely to further offend. So, it is key to consider what will replace the mechanisms and provisions that are in place for someone in that age group who offends.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It strikes me that we might be reducing or removing a marketplace for the Youth Justice Agency in that the number of people that it can deal with will be much reduced.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes, unless the architecture is changed. The problem will be with the ability to compel people to engage with that if they are not formally within the justice system.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Brian, do you want to come in again on this issue?

Mr Kingston: Children between the ages of 10 and 13 are involved in interface disturbances, which are criminal activities. In my constituency of North Belfast, that has been a regular occurrence, sadly. It is that younger age group that has been attracted to that criminal activity. My concern is about whether, if, suddenly, the police and the Youth Justice Agency cannot get involved and it is just down to social services, the police will be able to take a child home. Will the parents then say that it is not the police's business? I just feel that an extra responsibility is brought to bear when the police are involved. We all agree that there needs to be a difference of approach compared with that for adults, but young people are being attracted to those situations. It is about them understanding the seriousness of what they are involved in and that throwing stones when cars are driving by and attacking houses can have serious consequences. Generally, the level of crime in that age group has gone down, but the concern is that people will start to feel that they can do nothing about it and that it will seem like there is an exemption for people who do not understand not only the general consequences of their actions but the personal consequences.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We are happy to get you the stats on what level and type of offending you are looking at. We will have those; I just do not have them with me today. Hopefully, we will also be able to get you the stats on reoffending rates, which, I suspect, would be helpful to your understanding of that area. Those might help to inform your thinking on the infrastructure that you put in place for those in that age bracket who will no longer be formally in the justice system if the age is increased.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): A very good question, Connie. Thanks for that.

The last issue is the abolition of the defence of reasonable punishment — in layman's terms, the banning of smacking. If any members want to raise any issues or ask a question about that, they should do so now.

When Justice Department and Health Department officials were before the Committee, I asked them what their advice would be if someone witnessed a parent smacking a child. It got to the point where I basically asked, "Would you advise them to call 999?", and they had to say, "Yes". How would you investigate a report of a parent smacking a child?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That may well be a real example. Like any crime, it would be recorded because, first, it is an assault — going by your descriptor, it is probably common assault. That would go through our call-handling system, and, because it involves a child it would go to our central referral unit in the public protection branch, which has a formalised process for any offending where a child is involved. It will make an assessment about the role of social services. All the circumstances will be looked at, such as the background of the child, whether any other person was present and whether the child had any vulnerabilities. Every case will be assessed on its merits, but that may lead to the adult being interviewed. They will probably not be arrested: it depends on the circumstances, but that is the case more often than not. Certainly, they will be interviewed and, on the basis of that, we will most likely submit a file to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). That is when it becomes a matter for the adult or parent.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What would be the offence?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: In your scenario, common assault. It would be for the adult to put forward their defence as to why what they did was reasonable. It is for them to do that, not us. The burden is on them to prove to the court that it was reasonable.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Would you go out and interview a suspected perpetrator and victim? You would need evidence before submitting a file to the PPS.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes. It would be like any other investigation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If you saw evidence —

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: In your example, it was witnessed. There was a witness, from what you said.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The witness referral would be really important. If you were to go to a house or park where that was alleged to have happened and you found evidence of markings on the child, would that still be an assault, or would it go into the throes of actual bodily harm and/or child abuse?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes. Certainly, the child abuse arena becomes more relevant as you start to go up the offending scale. Yes, absolutely. Depending on the marks, it may be assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Given that you said that a witness statement is important and would be regarded as significant in a file to the PPS, is there a concern around neighbour disputes and nuisance claims?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: In many regards, it would be the same if the incident was between two adults. The same circumstances apply. We would still carry out an investigation; that is our starting position. That investigation will include anything that is relevant: witnesses, CCTV, body marks, Ring doorbell footage or whatever else there may be. If someone says, "I am their father, and they needed to be chastised", although that may be the case, the police will still carry out an investigation at that juncture. Whether that was considered to be a reasonable defence would be determined further down the line, but we would investigate it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If the reasonable defence is abolished, I suppose there still needs to be a defence in court.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That will not impact on the police. We will still carry out the investigation, because the burden is not on us to prove that the defence was not reasonable; the burden is on that individual to prove that it was reasonable. We will carry out an investigation in the case of an offence. Ultimately, we will be able to say, "That person witnessed it. We have seen a mark on the child's backside" — or on their arm or leg, for example — and "We'll put a file to the PPS". Whether or not the offence is abolished will not impact on the police investigation. Ultimately, if the defence is abolished, the individual will not be able to rely on it in court; it will be gone. That will not, however, impact on the police investigation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Right. OK.

Mr Kingston: As Paul said, the defence of "reasonable punishment" does not excuse punishing a child by physical assault. You will be involved in cases in which the punishment is deemed to be child abuse and is not reasonable. That assessment, rightly, already takes place.

In the wider context, it is welcome that there has been a decline in the physical punishment of children and that it is becoming less acceptable in society. The question is whether it should be abolished, so that any physical punishment of a child is a criminal offence.

The wording of the amendment is:

What is the legal definition of "battery"?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Essentially, it means the physical application of force. You are right to talk about common assault, which is covered by section 42 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The defence is only in the space of common assault: as soon as there is a mark, it does not come into play. It is about that kind of battery, not what we would call "technical common assault", where somebody apprehends immediate violence but there is no application of force. Battery has to take place: there has to be an application of force but without injury. When we get such a complaint, even if there is no physical injury, we investigate it.

We have early engagement with social services as well. They have what they call a "joint protocol investigation". Any allegation of assault on a child or child abuse investigation, whether the abuse is physical or sexual, involves an initial strategy meeting with social services. There is then a clear plan, which is called a "joint protocol investigation". We carry out the criminal aspect of that investigation, which may include a medical assessment of the child, interviewing the suspect and gathering witness statements. Social services carry out the safeguarding aspect of the investigation, which looks at what is going on in the home and who is looking after the child. Ultimately, there will be a file with a recommendation that goes, in most cases, to the Public Prosecution Service. Whether the case goes to the court is up to the PPS at that point. As ACC McNally said, that is where a suspect — the parent, in this case — can decide, under legal advice, to deploy that defence. It is up to the judge or the jury to accept that defence.

Mr Kingston: I will give you a scenario.

Say a child is in a shopping centre, and they are screaming and kicking on the ground because they want something, and the parent picks up the child, holds them tight enough that they do not fall and takes them out of the centre. If somebody sees that and says that the parent is hurting the child, how would you view that? If the measure came in, how would that be viewed?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It would be investigated. You cannot assume at that point of the report that it was all very reasonable and the parent was just lifting the child. If somebody is motivated enough to phone the police and say what they had seen, we would have to look at it. We would have to engage in a conversation with social services, and we would need to go and look at the CCTV. There would need to be an initial investigation.

That is not to say that everyone will be prosecuted or convicted as a result of that, but there will be an initial strategy conversation, assessment and initial investigation. If it is reported to the police, it will be investigated like everything else.

Mr Kingston: Is there a threshold? If so, what is it? It is not within the remit of the legislation, but on the issue of having some disciplinary tools, if a child is grounded, is that imprisonment? Has that ever been reported? Can a parent ground a child to their room or to a step?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: been reported.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That goes beyond the physicality that we are talking about. In some circumstances, that may stretch into the arena of child neglect. For example, if you send a child to their room every day for 12 hours without food —

Mr Kingston: As with any of these things, there can be extreme cases.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: — that goes into the world of child neglect because you have removed the physical element. The chastisement bit is around the miscarriage of the use of force.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Our concern in respect of the initial report is that, in far too many cases, we see things like that coming in that are symptomatic of other ongoing issues that are subsequently uncovered. That is why we are careful about those reports and make sure that they get due diligence and an assessment, particularly with our partners in social services because they may have information on their system that is not entirely obvious to us at the outset. That is why we have the joint protocol in place, and there is sign-off between two organisations when there is a report of child abuse or child neglect.

Ms Egan: A lot of my questions are about providing clarity in my mind. Anthony, it was useful when you said that you feel that it will not significantly affect how you operate. This is the abolition of a common-law defence. I want to check something for my own clarity and understanding. Obviously, you go into situations where there are children and vulnerable people. If the police see a child with bruises when they attend a household or a situation, they do not make an assessment on whether they were the result of reasonable punishment.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: No.

Ms Egan: That does not happen, because it is a common-law defence. That is what we are abolishing. Will you clarify how you work with social services when you have those concerns, and what steps you take if you come across a situation in which a child has concerning marks or bruising? How do you approach such situations?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Once the initial report has been received, as the ACC has said, it will go to our central referral unit. As per the joint protocol, the initial strategy conversation will then take place and the actions will be agreed. That may include a joint medical, so a paediatrician will conduct a medical with the child. Social services will be part of that. We may need to do an achieving best evidence (ABE) interview, which is a video-recorded interview of the child, depending on their age and capacity. Social services will assist with that: a social worker will be present with the police officer if the evidence is captured by way of an ABE.

Subsequently, we will interview the suspect and put the file together. Social services will have their own infrastructure for what takes place, including broader child safeguarding strategy meetings. It is a very close, step-by-step process. Once a joint-protocol investigation has been declared, it is all done by agreement.

Ms Egan: That is helpful. It is not the PSNI or police officers making the decision about reasonable chastisement if they see a child with marks; it is the common-law defence.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Absolutely. They may deploy it at interview, and if so we are obliged to probe that and try to understand its extent. Ultimately, however, that is for a court to decide on.

Mr Beattie: Guys, I really do not envy you. Listening to the questions, which have been really good, spins me off in so many different directions where I say, "What do we do about this?". What about a scenario in which a hold manoeuvre is taught to those working in the classroom to stop a child with special education needs hurting themselves? A hold manoeuvre involves you grasping a child, and it could, in essence, bruise that child. If that child goes home and the parent says that the use of a hold manoeuvre on their child was assault, you are going to have to investigate that. Is that correct?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: If it is reported as a crime, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is already the case. You would have to investigate that now.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes.

Mr Beattie: That will be the case for anybody who has to do a hold manoeuvre on a child with special educational needs for their own safety.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: If it is reported to us that someone feels that it has gone too far and constitutes a crime, we will have to investigate. We see that. There are circumstances in care homes and various other places where we have carried out many investigations in that regard. People will say that part of their training was to do this and do that, but, ultimately, we will still have to investigate, look at their levels of training and, potentially, observe their training to see whether they carried out the manoeuvre in the manner in which they were taught and so on. It does become quite complicated, and I have personal experience of trying to manage that.

Mr Beattie: The prevalence of that could increase when we remove this defence. I think that there is an understanding in society that some things have to be done to safeguard the child. There is nothing malicious in it — it is genuinely for their safety — but it can cause that —.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: If everything was done reasonably as per the training and it was an approved —

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Technique.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: — technique, we would not necessarily see that go anywhere. The situation with the application of force in the course of our duties is the same. If it is reasonable, proportionate and necessary and as per our tactics, that keeps it on the right side of the law.

Mr Beattie: We are talking about this being a common law offence, but some of the examples we are talking about could move into the category of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, could they not?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, but the defence does not apply with anything outside a section 42 assault.

Mr Beattie: If a type of incident moves into the category of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, do we now have a proposal for a police officer to just ticket somebody for that? Can they do that if such a proposal is brought in?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: They would not do that in the circumstances. You are talking about the potential to bring in a new penalty notice. If there was any ambiguity around the circumstances, a penalty notice would not be an appropriate option. One of the key things with a penalty notice is, as I said earlier when talking about the CRNs, the views of the victim. Clearly, if the incident is reported by a victim — be they a child or even an adult — it would not be proportionate and appropriate to issue a penalty notice. There would then be an investigation. We would not just be handing out a penalty notice.

Mr Beattie: So, we would have to stipulate that you cannot have a penalty notice in a case involving a child; you must have the investigation.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes. The penalty notice proposal is, obviously, a joint one from us that involves the Police Service. It is important to say that. Of course, there will be safeguards, and there will be operational guidance for officers. We are not saying that an assault occasioning actual bodily harm will automatically attract a penalty notice. We are saying that it is part of a range of options. There might be an assault occasioning actual bodily harm that is at the lower end; it could be a one-off; the perpetrator might admit their guilt; or it could be that the victim does not want to go to court and the penalty notice is an effective disposal mechanism. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm has been on the community resolution notice disposal for some time, and we say that a penalty notice is, potentially, a level up from a community resolution notice because it has that financial aspect.

Mr Beattie: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm can be quite a broad spectrum. We know that the "No file" decision pilot has just ended. That will now be rolled out far more. Does that give you leeway to do the investigation, say "There is nothing here" and then avail yourselves of that "No file" decision so that the file will not go to the PPS? Does that aid you in this a bit?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Again, that was an internal PSNI initiative that began initially because we were finding that, in up to 8,000 cases a year, we were sending files to the PPS with a "No prosecution" recommendation because we felt, in our professional judgement, that the evidential test had not been met. The PPS was agreeing with us in 97% of cases. Those were files that our officers on the front line had to create, and those files that landed with the PPS had to go to our case-management teams. It was a lot of bureaucracy for no real benefit. We have found that we are able to cut in half the time that it takes to deal with a "No prosecution" matter by returning the decision-making power on that to police.

Mr Beattie: Absolutely. I am just seeing how the "No file" decision pilot could be rolled out and applied in the likes of that scenario. You can see where it will be —.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: The other important thing is that is that it does not negate the police investigation: that has to take place. The assessment is made at the end of the investigation that it does not meet the evidential threshold. There are all sorts of checks and balances. Again, the PPS dip-samples some of our decision-making right up to inspector rank. The investigation is done as it has always been. It is about whether we submit a file to the PPS to ratify the decision.

Mr Beattie: The victim always has the ability to have that reviewed —

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: They have a right of appeal, yes, absolutely —.

Mr Beattie: — so there is always a review mechanism. Do you think —?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Sorry: I was just going to say that, in none of the reviews has the decision been overturned — in one case, a community resolution notice was issued — so it has been proven to be effective.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will add to that. It is the first time that the victim has had an established right to a review. The Public Prosecution Service has it in place for prosecutorial decisions, but it is the first time that we have implemented that in the PSNI.

Mr Beattie: I spoke to them on Friday. It is fascinating. It could really speed things up. They are really happy with it; you can understand why, I suppose.

Very quickly, how do you deal with vexatious claims? What are you going to do about them, and will you deal with them purely through investigation? I know that you have do the investigation, but what do you do if you find that a claim is vexatious? How do you deal with that?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: We would seek to prosecute, if we had the evidence up front.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes. In certain circumstances, we have prosecuted people for wasting police time; I can think of a number of such cases in recent years. Ultimately, though, there is a difficult balance to strike when it comes to vexatious claims, because, in my experience, most often, there is an underlying reason or issue. That is usually about vulnerabilities to do with a person's mental health or some form of addiction, and, for whatever reason, they abuse the law. The number of prosecutions for wasting police time is probably quite low.

We have support hubs in our local policing districts for those who most frequently contact the police. Where we have habitual callers, as I said, we have established that there is, more often than not, an underlying reason for that. Through the support hubs, which are multi-agency, with police, health and social services and so on, we look at people's vulnerabilities in order to manage them rather than criminalise people who, more often than not, have a vulnerability.

Mr Beattie: I am more concerned about a person making a vexatious claim as part of a dispute between neighbours. There is nothing that you can do about that, I suppose, unless you investigate and find that out.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes.

Mr Beattie: My very last question, if I may, is one that you probably will not be able to answer but it is fair to ask it. We have been talking about physical violence — hands-on; hitting somebody — but what happens if it goes the other way, and the parent who now knows that they cannot slap the child screams in the child's face instead? What is the crime in that case?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: My first thought about that is the domestic abuse legislation. You will be aware that, in 2022, we brought in the offence of coercive control, which is the non-physical aspect of domestic abuse — previously, we did not have an offence of domestic abuse; we prosecuted for the assault or whatever it might have been and flagged it as domestic abuse — and about controlling, manipulating —.

Mr Beattie: Sorry to interrupt you, Anthony. I am thinking about the involuntary reaction of a parent. Something has happened that has scared them, and they do not lay hands on the child but end up screaming at them instead. It is not domestic abuse but an involuntary reaction; that is what they do.

Ms Ferguson: It is a loss of control.

Mr Beattie: Sorry?

Ms Ferguson: It is not an involuntary action; it is a loss of control by that adult. I am sorry for interjecting, but —.

Mr Beattie: I get that, and I have no issue, but you understand my point. If a child is about to step in front of a car, and you grab them and drag them back, and you then have that involuntary — yes, it is a loss of control because you are scared; when people get scared, they lose control to an extent —.

Ms Ferguson: That is a different scenario from the previous one that you talked about —

Mr Beattie: I know, but you know the point that I am making.

Ms Ferguson: — because that is about child safety.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We will leave the debate for the Chamber.

Ms Ferguson: I am not getting it — I think that you are mixing up your examples — but we will leave it there.

Mr Beattie: You know the point that I am making. It is about whether the involuntary reaction to something like that could be about safeguarding. I am talking not about a child being naughty but an involuntary reaction to something that has happened.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Again, it is so hard to be prescriptive about all those circumstances. If you have a parent screaming in the face of a child, that could be a technical assault. We talked earlier about common assault where the child is apprehending that immediate violence.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Common assault.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It could be ill-treatment of the child as per child neglect and child abuse legislation. It all depends on what is going on in the background. What is the context and the circumstances? Is there something else underlying? I cannot see something such as that going to court, but you never know. If that is reported, there will always be that initial investigation, as I outlined.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That ends the session. Thank you very much for your time. That was a marathon session for you, but it has been really informative for us. After the Christmas break, you have got us right back into the Justice Bill, so thank you very much for that and for your time. It is really appreciated. Thank you.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: You are welcome, Chair. Thanks, members.