Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): I welcome Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald, Chief Inspector Louise Cummings and Chief Inspector Paddy Mullan. Thank you for coming to our meeting, and I open the floor to you.

Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to provide the Police Service of Northern Ireland's views on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. I am from the PSNI's justice department. It is good to see you all again.

It is important at the outset to state that the PSNI welcomes the Bill's direction of travel. It is a substantial package of reform that will, in many respects, strengthen transparency, consistency and public confidence in sentencing. We see real value in the clearer statutory emphasis on public protection, improved mechanisms to correct outcomes that appear unduly lenient and the provisions that directly reflect the harm caused to victims' families and communities. We support, in particular, the proposal to place the purposes and principles of sentencing on a statutory footing: punishment, public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation underpinned by proportionality, fairness and transparency.

The duty to follow sentencing guidance and to explain in open court when departing from it should improve consistency and understanding of decisions. Operationally, that matters to us. Consistency strengthens confidence, helps to manage expectations with victims and families and creates a clearer framework around how the justice process reaches the point of sentence. We want to be candid, however, about what that means for policing in practice. A more explicit statutory framework inevitably increases the premium on evidencing aggravating and public protection factors to the required standard across investigating teams. Whether in serious crime, public protection, neighbourhood policing or other specialist functions, there will be a heightened requirement to ensure that case files demonstrate the seriousness and impact of offending in a structured way that aligns with the new statutory purposes and aggravations. That means more focused evidence gathering, more supervisory oversight of file quality and earlier engagement with prosecution colleagues where aggravators or tariff impacts are relevant.

In that context, the PSNI welcomes reforms that strengthen outcomes and confidence in serious cases. The provisions on life sentences, particularly the statutory starting points and the requirement to explain "life sentences" in plain language, should improve transparency for victims' families and reinforce public confidence.

Similarly, extending the unduly lenient sentence regime to all Crown Court sentences closes an important gap and provides a meaningful safeguard where outcomes appear manifestly inadequate. While decisions properly remain with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the courts, this strengthens confidence that the system can correct itself.

The PSNI also recognises the significance of the provisions relating to failure to disclose information about a victim's remains following tragic circumstances involving murder or manslaughter. The measures create clearer consequences for deliberate non-disclosure, offer structured incentives for meaningful disclosure and require parole commissioners to take non-disclosure into account when making parole decisions. From a policing perspective, that can provide important leverage and, crucially, support families who endure the unique trauma of not being able to lay their loved one to rest.

We support the statutory aggravation frameworks, including aggravation by hostility and aggravation by reason of vulnerability. Those changes will be welcomed by victims and those who advocate for them, and they should bring more consistent sentencing and clearer recognition of harm, including the wider impact of hate-motivated offending on communities.

Operationally, the challenge is an evidential one. Proving hostility motivation, defining the term hostility or establishing that an offender knew or reasonably should have known of a vulnerability often requires additional background information, appropriate lines of inquiry, third-party material, digital evidence and a clear articulation in the prosecution file. Without clear operational guidance and consistent training, there is a risk of uneven application, contested cases and avoidable delay. However, done well, the provisions can strengthen outcomes and enhance the service provided to victims.

On road traffic matters, the latest annual collision report shows that road harm has increased in 2025-26 compared with the previous year. Injury collisions, overall casualties, fatalities and serious injuries have all increased. The calendar year to 14 June records 31 fatalities compared with 21 in the same period last year. In that context, we welcome the strengthened approach to road traffic offending, including the creation of a distinct offence of causing death or grievous bodily injury (GBI) by driving while disqualified, enhanced sentencing provisions for dangerous driving causing death or GBI and causing death by careless driving while being unfit through drink or drugs, moving those from 14 years to 20 years.

We also welcome the enhanced provisions for repeat offenders, not just in sentencing but in relevant disqualification periods. That reinforces the seriousness of deliberate disregard for court-imposed disqualifications and should be welcomed by victims and their families.

We flag what appears to be an inconsistency with sentencing in relation to causing death or GBI while driving while disqualified. The draft legislation indicates four years' imprisonment on indictment for the new offence. That is in stark contrast to what is being suggested for the other offences causing death or serious injury, particularly given that the offence displays a clear disregard for the court and, by its nature, indicates a repeat road traffic offence that has resulted in the death or serious injury of another.

Against that broadly positive picture, we have two key issues that we would like to raise with the Committee. The first is the proposed expansion of suspended sentence orders with community requirements. We recognise and support the policy intent. The evidence suggests that well-resourced community supervision in appropriate cases, with effective support mechanisms and the required infrastructure, can reduce offending and improve longer-term safety. The concern is that, as drafted, with the current information available, the operational impact on policing has not yet been fully articulated. There is no published demand modelling to quantify how many additional offenders will be under supervision, how many breaches are likely to arise, what volume of enforcement activity could follow and what that translates to in respect of calls for service, arrests and risk management activity for the police. In plain terms, if community supervision capacity is stretched, the risk is that unmet demand does not disappear; it potentially reappears as police demand. With current resourcing and demand challenges, policing capacity is limited, and it will be challenging to absorb that.

If breaches are not detected early or supervision is not robust, the consequences may land on the PSNI and the communities that we serve. We therefore ask the Committee to seek clear assurance that the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) will be sufficiently resourced and operationally prepared before the provisions commence so that risk and demand are not inadvertently displaced on to policing.

Our second and most significant concern relates to assaults on police officers in the public worker provisions. The PSNI supports strengthening protections for all public-facing workers through the new offence of assaulting a public worker and the aggravation framework for serious offences committed against public workers, especially the increase in sentencing on summary conviction from six months to 12 months. That compares with the standard assault on police offence, which is only six months on summary conviction.

That is a significant step in recognising the risks faced by all those delivering public services, and we support strengthened protections for all front-line workers. However, the Bill's consequential amendments remove the existing police-specific offence of assaulting a constable contrary to section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The Police Federation has been clear that, while it supports enhanced protections for all front-line workers, the new offence must complement not replace the existing offence of assault on police, albeit we would like to see an increase to the sentence available on summary conviction for assault on police similar to that proposed for assault on front-line workers. It is important to note that any increase will have the required impact only if custodial sentences are utilised.

The Police Federation view reflects the operational reality that police officers are distinct. They are required to intervene in volatile situations, face violence regularly, move towards danger to protect the public, act on behalf of the state to protect all of us and exercise legal powers, such as arrest, search and restraint, in order to meet statutory obligations, such as preventing and detecting crime, bringing offenders to justice and maintaining public safety. That unique role means that assaults on officers in the execution of their duty are qualitatively different from assaults in other public-facing contexts. The Police Federation highlights the scale of the issue, noting that assaults on police officers occur at an average rate of around seven a day. We are concerned that removing a named police-specific offence risks blurring the seriousness of the issue; weakening deterrence; obscuring the true scale of violence through less distinct recording; and impacting on workforce confidence and morale. If the Bill progresses without change, safeguards such as the following will be essential: explicit statutory recognition of police officers as a distinct, protected category; clear sentencing guidelines requiring meaningful uplift for assaults on police; mandatory recording of cases involving police officer or staff victims; and ongoing monitoring mechanisms.

Finally, we highlight implementation costs and dependencies. As with any Bill, the cumulative effect of reforms will require practical adjustments, such as updates to the crime recording and case management systems to capture new offences and aggravators; changes to charging codes and templates; training for front-line officers and investigative staff; supervisory guidance on file standards; and clear internal and external communication so that staff and partners understand what has changed and how the change is to be applied. All of that comes at a cost, both financial and in organisational capacity, and will require adequate lead-in time to operationalise.

Notwithstanding my comments, the PSNI broadly supports the Bill and the improvements that it would make to public protection, transparency and victim-centred justice. Our message is simply that the operational foundations, such as resourcing, demand, understanding, IT readiness, training and communication must be in place so that the Bill delivers its intended benefits without avoidable pressure being transferred on to policing or being introduced into cases that matter deeply to victims and communities.

We will continue to liaise constructively with the Committee as your scrutiny proceeds, and we are happy to take your questions now.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): Thanks very much. You have answered my first question with the latter part of your statement. There has been some concern around the new offence of assault on public workers and exactly what that looks like. I have concerns about whether it creates a hierarchy of victims, but I assume, going by your comments on assaults on PSNI officers, that we will not have data that is aggregated by specific type of public worker in order to identify where the pressures are. Is that right?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: We could probably look at that. I do not have the data to hand today on the level of assault, the motivation for assault and the employment of the victim. We could look at that. We capture that data where it is available. I cannot answer that today, but I can take it away and look at it. I get your point that it is about ascertaining where the demand is — for example, whether it falls on health staff, security staff or people who look after shops. There is probably a bit of work to do on that, but it is important to clarify that we support protection for other front-line workers. It is just that, given the unique nature of policing, which is reflected in the Police Federation's submission, there are, we think, enough grounds to justify a difference for police.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): I take it from that that changes would have to be made to how the PSNI records data or to the systems that you use.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, they would. If the Bill remains unchanged, it will be hard to differentiate between the specific occupations of victims. We would have to figure out a way to do that. It is not insurmountable — I am sure that we could do that internally — but it is easy to extrapolate high-level data for assaults on police against the legislation as it stands now. The Police Federation uses that to inform its Let Them Protect campaign. That has very clear messaging that articulates the scale of assaults on police officers and how we are an outlier when you compare figures across the UK. All of that would be more challenging to do if there were just the one cohort of assault on a public worker.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): Has the PSNI given thought to the pressure that the repeat offender provisions and uplifts to sentences would lead to when it comes to our prisoner population?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: We, along with our partners across the Criminal Justice Board and in the Prison Service, are alive to that, but, of course, we do not have direct control over it. We work with our colleagues in the DOJ. There are different arrangements in place to try to reduce the prison population, and we work with colleagues on managing that. We do not necessarily have a view on that issue.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming in today. It has been really useful. The only question that I have is about the concerns that you raised about the operational impact that some of the provisions will have on policing, community supervision capacity and assaults on police. Did you engage with the Department about your concerns as it drafted the Bill? Is there ongoing communication on that?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes. The Department is aware of the fact that we are quite keen to try to articulate exactly what that demand looks like. The Bill states that if, for example, there is a further offence during a suspended sentence order or a breach of a community requirement, it is for the Probation Board to go to court to satisfy a magistrate. Ultimately, a bench warrant or a summons would be issued, which would potentially translate into action for us. However, it is not clear what that sort of demand looks like. We have engaged with the Department on that. There is a working group, which Louise sits on, with the Department. We are in the early stages of working through what operationalisation would look like, but the engagement continues, and we have flagged that.

Ms Egan: Have you received any assurances on other issues that you raised with the Department previously? How do you see that working group operating? Do you think that you can address those issues as well as the issues that you want us to raise as a Committee?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, I am confident that, through the working group, we can work through them with the Department. I do not know whether you, Louise, want to talk about the working group and the work so far. We have not yet come to an agreement that will result in our receiving the data that we require, but we can work through that via the working group. I am confident that we can work constructively with the Department to ascertain that, and that will help us to operationalise the Bill as effectively as we can.

Is there anything that you, Louise, want to say about the working group and the work so far?

Chief Inspector Louise Cummings (Police Service of Northern Ireland): There have been discussions about the assault on police offence and the changes in that regard. We had a good discussion about where the whole public worker offence has come from and its journey, so that we understand it. We support that, but we have concerns about the assault on police aspect, which the boss outlined.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Gary, and colleagues, for your paper and your attendance.

Are you saying that, because of the implications of the Bill, the police will have to put more effort into proving aggravation? You heard our earlier session. Will you explain how aggravation is currently dealt with? The prosecutor can identify it. Are you concerned that the Bill will put more onus on the proving of it?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: If it is clear from the outset that there is a statutory aggravator, it will be incumbent on the PSNI to take that into account in its investigative strategy to be able to prove that and to ensure that there is sufficient evidence in the file that is submitted to the Prosecution Service so that it can make the appropriate decisions. Once it gets to the point of sentence, the judge can declare the fact that it has been aggravated by hostility, for example, and then pass the appropriate sentence.

It is important to note that we do that now to a certain degree. Where we identify that a particular criminal offence is motivated by hate, that is identified and flagged as such, and there is an appropriate investigative strategy that takes that into account. The benefit of the Bill, from what we can see, is that it makes that much more explicit from the outset as opposed to it being articulated later.

I will bring Paddy, who has led a lot of the PSNI work in that space, in on that in a second. We have seen that, in sentencing, there has been inconsistency in making sure that the aggravator has been clearly articulated and passed through to the sentence. The Bill makes that a bit clearer. There is no doubt that there will be a challenge in making sure that we get our investigations right, but we should be doing that anyway by ensuring that we get sufficient evidence.

Chief Inspector Paddy Mullan (Police Service of Northern Ireland): I do not really have more to add; you covered it. We are already doing that. Where we record a hate crime, we will seek to find the evidence of the motivation, because we are very aware that, at the end of the enhanced sentencing process that we have now, the judge will look to see whether that motivation is there. Where there is evidence of that motivation, the judge will seek to enhance the sentence at the final stage of that journey in the criminal justice process. As we are already doing that, the Bill just provides a very transparent process for how we do it. Where hate motivation is not evidenced, the Bill provides the victim with an early indicator about where it drops off in the crime that is being investigated and pursued through the criminal justice system.

Mr Kingston: Are you content with what is in the Bill on that? Sectarianism has not been specified, but "religious hostility" has been included. Is sectarianism currently a factor in sentencing?

Chief Inspector Mullan: No, it is not. What is in the Bill is essentially what the current legislation allows a judge to enhance a sentence around. Nothing in the law has changed on the protected characteristics. It is well known that we record sectarianism as an additional protected characteristic, but it cannot be prosecuted through a protected characteristic. Sectarianism would have to be shoehorned into religion or one of the other protected characteristics that are outlined in the statute.

Mr Kingston: I am checking my understanding of this. Am I right in thinking that suspended sentence orders and community sentence requirements are two different sentences and that the Bill will provide the means for a suspended sentence to include a community order, which would be a supervised suspended sentence?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, that is the case. I am sure that others from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) or the Probation Board could maybe articulate this better than I, but, essentially, a suspended sentence is exactly that.

Mr Kingston: People will say that a person is getting off with the offence.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I know that that is not the case, but, ultimately —

Mr Kingston: No, that is not the case.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: — if there is no further offending, it is likely that that will not take effect. My understanding of the Bill is that it will bring in additional requirements as part of that suspended sentence, including community requirements, such as electronic tagging or rehabilitation treatment for drug addiction. Of course, if there is further offending during the period of the suspended sentence or a breach of the requirements, the person can be brought back to court. The Bill refers to that as "an activation event". We welcome that, because it speaks more about rehabilitation and reparation rather than there not being any particular programme or support during that period. The community requirements as part of the suspended sentence order will achieve that and, hopefully, reduce reoffending.

Mr Kingston: You mentioned that some of the workload will fall back on the police. Will some of the work on community orders go to the probation service?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I think so. The Bill talks about the Probation Board or:

In the vast majority of cases, therefore, it will be for the Probation Board to manage the community sentences and the relevant programmes. The impact on the probation service is unclear if, compared with the current baseline, there is a significant increase in the number of people who require supervision in the community because they may have been given a probation order. What impact will that have on the probation service, and can it be sufficiently managed? If it cannot, we are flagging the fact that, if it is not sufficiently managed or effectively resourced, there is a potential risk of additional demand coming towards policing either by way of reoffending or additional bench warrants for people who need to be arrested for breaches.

Mr Kingston: Right, yes. As you may have seen, paragraph 90 of the explanatory and financial memorandum states:

I do not know whether it is fair to ask you this: do you have concerns about that?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: As I said in my opening statement, any piece of legislation will incur additional costs, whether they be for training or changes to IT infrastructure, systems or processes. That is just being honest about it. As I said, we do not know what any kind of overspill of demand from the probation side will look like. There is no doubt that there will be additionality, but the quantum of that is unclear at this moment in time.

Mr Kingston: OK. My last question is about assaults on police officers. You may be aware that that has been dropped as an out-of-court disposal, which we welcome; certainly my party welcomes it. Are you saying that it would no longer exist as a stand-alone offence under the Bill and that it would be merged into a general assault on public workers? Would it no longer exist?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: My understanding is that that offence will be repealed, if this goes as planned.

Mr Kingston: The Bill does not state that, as far as I am aware.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I think that there is —.

Mr Kingston: Is there?

Chief Inspector Cummings: It is in the amendments.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, it is potentially in the amendments.

Chief Inspector Cummings: It is only one element of it. Obstruction and resistance will stay in section 66 of the 1998 Act, but assault will be repealed, essentially.

Mr Kingston: OK. We will look into that. Thank you.

Mr McGlone: Before I ask my questions, I convey my personal thanks to your officers who, during the course of the past couple of weeks, were the bulwark against violence and racism on the streets. A lot of this sentencing Bill is very relevant to some of the cases that your officers had to deal with, such as helping to transport people from their homes as those homes burnt around them. I place my thanks to you firmly on the record. That is maybe not done often enough, so I say that on behalf of some of the people to whom we have been speaking during the course of this week especially.

It might be helpful, by way of background, to know how many officers were injured during the course of that troubled period — it has been nearly three weeks now. You may not have that information with you today.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I can confirm the latest statistic. We believe that 42 officers were injured.

Mr McGlone: I get entirely what you and the Police Federation have been saying about officers who are injured during the course of their duties in keeping the community safe. However, I get that that also applies to many others in the front-line emergency services who are in that same category. Let us work through that a wee bit more. I raised earlier today with the PPS representatives the distinction, if there is one, between public-service and public-sector workers. Are you suggesting that there should be some sort of tiered approach to sentencing, whereby cases involving people who are assaulted during the course of their duty as emergency workers should be determined to be very serious offences, if not much more serious? Of course, it depends on the nature of the offence, but should they have extra weight given to them in the judge's deliberations?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will start by thanking you for your comments. Over the past couple of weeks, our officers have worked under incredibly challenging conditions to calm disorder, protect lives and restore normality, so I thank you for that on their behalf.

We are not suggesting a tiered approach in that I do not want to pit, almost, one public-sector worker against another. Our understanding is that, while in England and Wales, perhaps initially, there was a focus on assault on emergency workers that was broadened out to public workers, the Bill includes public workers in the widest sense, rather than just public-sector workers. It is framed as including public workers in the broadest sense.

That is why we, as an organisation, and the federation are clear that we support those workers being protected via this legislation. However, the point has been made that policing is slightly different, especially given the trouble over the past couple of weeks, which you talked about. That is our position on that.

Mr McGlone: OK. Thanks for that.

I will take it a stage further, and this is particularly, but not exclusively, informed by what has happened over the past while and by listening to people who have been so affected by being put out of their homes or being chased on the streets because, incidentally, the colour of their skin did not match the perceived prejudices of those who were chasing them or trying to intimidate them. Do you feel that the sentencing Bill would give adequate strength to you, as the practitioners on the ground who collate and gather evidence? It would be helpful for me — I have mentioned this before — to understand how that evidence is gathered when it comes to the motivation of the individual who has committed a crime. The PPS referred earlier to the fact that some of what people post online could be hate in itself. Can you give me some sort of insight into whether, during the course of an investigation, if a person who did a, b, c or d had a racial motivation, that motivation is also determined by what the person has been posting online, such as on Facebook or wherever it may be? That would clearly establish that individual's motivation towards either the direction or the commission of the crime.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will start, and then Paddy, who is the operational lead on hate crime, can come in with some examples. Does the Bill bring adequate strength? The benefit of the Bill is in making the aggravator statutory and clear from the outset so that we, and everyone, know what we are investigating and so that, from the outset, it is incumbent on us to secure the relevant evidence to prove the hate motivation in situations such as the example that you gave. As I said, that will carry the whole way through from the file preparation and will highlight that to the public prosecutor when it comes to decision right through to the sentencing, when the judge will have to explicitly state that the situation was hate motivated and explain how that has affected the tariff for the sentence. That is all to be welcomed, because, at the minute, it feels almost informal. The Bill tightens that up and places it on a statutory footing.

When it comes to gathering evidence, we will pursue all lines of enquiry. You are right that, sometimes, the nature of the crime and what is in front of you make it obvious that it is motivated by hate, and, at other times, that will come out through other lines of enquiry. It could come through cyber-related investigations or what is on the phone or social media accounts, for example. All that evidence will need to be put to a suspect. Paddy, are there any specific examples of how we do that?

Chief Inspector Mullan: In that space, there are two distinct groups. You have the online bit and the in-person bit, and they are dealt with slightly differently. The online bit will obviously depend on what is posted, where it is posted, how it is posted and when it is posted. All that is a factor in how we consider what is motivated and whether it is online incitement or whatever offence you are investigating. In the real world, we are looking for what the person says during an interview. Obviously, we will interview suspects and ask, "Why did you do it?", and there is every chance that they will say, "Well, it was because I have a real hostility towards —" whatever that protected characteristic is. As the chief superintendent said, we will look for the supporting evidence from witnesses and what the person says at the time of the offence. If there is criminal damage, which is often graffiti, it will speak for itself; the graffiti will, in all likelihood, prove the motivation. That is a really difficult question to answer because it will depend on the circumstances, but we do that work already anyway as part of the investigation.

Mr McGlone: Do you feel that, in general, the sentencing Bill could make that much clearer and could facilitate — it is not easier — your officers that bit more to focus on those aspects of the crime that the individual or individuals have committed?

Chief Inspector Mullan: It does a number of things. From a policing point of view, it provides that focus, as you say. It will allow the officer to hone in and understand what they are investigating and say, "For the purposes of this investigation, this is what I need to do". It absolutely allows us to focus, and, in some respects, it makes the accountability structures a lot easier by allowing us to make sure that we are adhering to what points in that offence are required to be proved. If that threshold is not met, we will ask, "Is it just the baseline offence rather than the aggravated offence?".

Importantly, this legislation, I hope, gives confidence to victims, because, as I said, it provides a really transparent process in the journey through the criminal justice system by showing where the hostility and motivation are and whether we can or cannot prove them. I think that that provides confidence to victims and communities in the wider sense. As you discussed, the violence in the past week or two weeks was not just against the individuals who were targeted; whole communities have a sense of fear around that. The legislation will give us an ability to provide the reassurance that we are treating such crimes from the outset in a very transparent way.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: The public messaging is that the conviction stands motivated by hate and that there is an additional tariff. Sharing that with the public will help, in addition to the fact that that will be reflected in the criminal record and that the criminal damage is not simply criminal damage but is criminal damage motivated by hate.

Mr McGlone: Chair, I will come in on that, with your permission. It is very important that the message goes out through your comms or whatever that, equally, you could get a conviction from what you post online. That is where I have seen some of the worst stuff about people, irrespective of whether it is on the colour of their skin, their nationality, their sexual orientation or whatever it may be. I have seen some of the worst purveyors of hatred online, and that feeds into a narrative that can lead to someone having a petrol bomb put through their window. Whatever comms mechanisms you have should be used to put out the message that says, "Be very careful about what you are putting online".

Mr Bradley: My question has been partly answered. It is on amending section 66 to downgrade the offence of assault on a police officer to that of obstructing a police officer. I do not think that we, as a party, could accept that. In fact, from our point of view, an assault of any kind on a front-line worker, including, not excluding, a member of the PSNI, should be dealt with more harshly. On many occasions, the PSNI, nurses, doctors, firemen and ambulance drivers become piggy in the middle, and, in times of unrest, they become the target for both sides. The crime of assaulting a front-line worker should be more serious than common assault, and the sentencing should reflect that.

Also on sentencing, sometimes a crime is committed and a PSNI officer goes out of their way to do an awful lot of paperwork to prepare a case to take to court, and the PPS drops it. That deflates the officer. That officer will have wasted their time. It tells the victim that they have no confidence in the PSNI and that they have been denied justice. That also has to be addressed.

I will be brief on this point. I have no doubt whatsoever that there should be a stiffer sentence for assault on a front-line worker and that there is no such thing as obstructing, unless you stand in front of somebody. If you strike somebody, that is assault in anybody's book and should be dealt with as such. Thank you, Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): No bother, Maurice. Ciara is next.

Ms Ferguson: Sorry for the delay. I was waiting for questions from Maurice.

Prior to this session, we had a presentation from the Public Prosecution Service. You may have heard that I raised clause 36, which deals with aggravation by reason of vulnerability. The PPS has raised concerns that that is already taken into consideration at sentencing where it is an issue and that including it now would add unnecessary complexity to the investigation and prosecution of cases. I want to hear your thoughts on that. I know that you are supportive of it. What are your thoughts on what the Public Prosecution Service is saying, and what are your general thoughts on that point?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I did not hear fully what the PPS was saying just before we came in, but I think that it was something about the articulation of the challenges of evidencing that. We agree with that. Just like the provision for aggravation by hostility, there will be an additional challenge to evidence where that comes from, and that will be the same for vulnerability. We identify vulnerability anyway in our existing processes. However, given the fact that we see a huge amount of demand relating to vulnerability, we can see the merit of having a specific offence or aggravator, albeit that we understand that it will bring some evidential challenges as well.

I agree that the definition is quite broad, particularly the "or any other reason" piece, but we have overcome that before. I can think of my experience in the public protection branch. In the adult safeguarding framework, there is a definition of an adult safeguarding investigation, which, from memory, is an adult who is at risk of harm or in need of protection. There might be opportunities to tighten up the definition of vulnerability. Notwithstanding the fact that, yes, it will create additional challenges of evidencing that, we see some merit in it. Do you want to come in on that, Paddy?

Chief Inspector Mullan: No, I do not really have anything to add.

Ms Ferguson: OK. I will move on. From your experience over the years, in which cases do you feel that sentences have been unduly lenient? I previously highlighted a view to the Public Prosecution Service that there is a general perception that there are a lot of unduly lenient sentences in cases, whether they relate to drug supply, attacks or whatever, concerning the most vulnerable, such as those who are isolated in their home, live on their own or have a mental health issue or disability. In the past few years and based on the cases that you bring forward, have you noticed any specific offences for which people most frequently receive unduly lenient sentences?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will have to come back to you on that one. I do not want to just give my own opinion on it. I would need to consult colleagues from across, for example, the crime department, who investigate serious crimes that go to the Crown Court to see whether any particular themes emerge from that.

This might not necessarily be in the Crown Court space, but there has been an articulation on and a belief about, certainly from the Police Federation, sentences for the likes of assault on police. There is a perception in the organisation that those could be strengthened, but there is an acceptance of that across the Public Prosecution Service. We have met representatives from it and the judiciary on that. That is one example, which probably does not even fit into that piece, because, obviously, it relates to a very tight subsection of offences. I will probably need to come back to you on that specific piece on unduly lenient sentences insofar as the Bill is concerned, if that is OK.

Ms Ferguson: That is fine. That would be good.

Finally, do you see the police requiring much system change so that they can record the new aggravators that are proposed in the Bill? Will any additional training be required to assist officers in identifying aggravators and ensuring that the best evidence is secured to assist potential prosecutions?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: There is no doubt that additional training will be required, and that will involve the whole organisation. Around 10,000 people may need to be trained on the changes that the Bill brings in. We do not necessarily have a training plan for that yet, clearly, but we will obviously be able to provide further detail on what that looks like, including on the time and cost, as we go forward.

There will be system changes. Paddy can come in on this, but we flag hate-motivated offences, for example, as per current practice. It is about understanding the exact differences that will come about from the statutory aggravators in the Bill, how those are flagged and how the requirements will differ from our existing practice. I have no doubt that there will be changes to our systems and processes from an IT perspective. Paddy, do you want to add anything?

Chief Inspector Mullan: I agree. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have to look at the specifics of what the aggravation looks like for protected characteristics, because, at present, we record based on perception, whereas the aggravator will be put on a statutory footing and will be evidence-led. There will have to be some thought around how we record that internally. That might require some system changes.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): At this point, it falls to me to thank the witnesses for their attendance at Committee and to invite them to take their ease.