---

Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007. The noble Lord said: As the title suggests, the purpose of the order is to further amend and update the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, commonly known as PACE, which introduced the now well-established statutory framework for the exercise of police powers in Northern Ireland. This framework is, of course, closely modelled on the one that was first introduced in England and Wales in 1984. It is now well over a decade since the last major review of PACE in Northern Ireland. In that decade, society has changed radically and that is reflected in the areas of policing and criminality. A joint Home Office/Cabinet Office review of PACE took place in 2002 and there was a further Home Office review in 2004. These produced a range of proposals aimed at modernising police powers. Many of those proposals have now been enacted in England and Wales via the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. As a result, the PACE regime in Northern Ireland is now very out of step with England and Wales in a number of areas, and the order before the Committee today simply aims to address that. Making amendments to the PACE (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 will provide the Police Service of Northern Ireland with a PACE regime very similar to the one that is available to their colleagues in England and Wales and it will enable them to combat crime more efficiently and effectively in the 21st century. Several of the changes in the order are of a purely technical nature and, with your Lordships’ leave, I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendments of substance. Part II deals with police powers to stop and search, and I shall highlight two of those. The first relates to fireworks. Most people enjoy fireworks responsibly but, in the wrong hands, they can cause not only annoyance and misery but serious injury and death. A small and dangerous mindless minority use them to intimidate and terrorise those around them. The police in England and Wales have the power to stop and search a person or vehicle and to seize fireworks if they have reasonable suspicion that possession is illegal under the terms of existing fireworks legislation. Although Northern Ireland already has a strict fireworks licensing regime, I believe that this power should also be provided to police to deal with those who are intent on deliberately breaching the law. The other change in relation to search powers will require police constables, prior to commencing a search of a person or vehicle, to provide their name in addition to their police number and police station. The same requirement will apply to the completion of a record of a search. This is important in Northern Ireland as the police service moves towards greater transparency in its contact with the public. Noble Lords should note that, as in England and Wales, officers will not be obliged to supply their name in the case of inquiries linked to the investigation of terrorism or where they reasonably believe that, by doing so, they may be endangered. Part III of the order deals with police powers of entry, search and seizure. In this modern age, criminal evidence and the proceeds of crime can be moved very quickly between locations in an effort to thwart police investigations. Therefore, it is important that we reduce the current bureaucracy associated with search warrants to reflect changes in working procedures and patterns of criminal activity. I should add that the bureaucracy was put there by this House in the first place. It is not the police’s fault; they have to work under the legislation. At present, a constable is required to apply in person for a warrant which can be used to search a single premises on one occasion only and within one month of the date of issue. Applying repeatedly for warrants for different premises owned by the same person can cause delays and impede investigations. By broadening the scope of search warrants and the way in which they are applied for and executed, the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing warrant structure will be substantially improved. This draft order will allow for a warrant to be issued covering one or more specified premises; it is not a fishing expedition. A new warrant will also be introduced authorising a search of any premises occupied or controlled by an individual, whether or not all addresses are known to the police at the time of the application. In addition, warrants may authorise access on more than one occasion and will be valid for three months as opposed to one month. In widening the range and scope of search warrants, I am fully aware of the need to ensure that there are stringent safeguards and protection for those whose premises are being searched. Under the new arrangements, there will be a greater requirement on police officers to satisfy a lay magistrate by providing specific information and justification when making application for a warrant. Also, no premises may be entered or searched more than once without the written authority of an officer of at least the rank of inspector. Some important changes in the area of arrest are set out in Part IV of the draft order. The right to liberty is a key principle of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the power of arrest represents a very obvious interference with that basic right. Arrest is, however, a crucial weapon in the police armoury for tackling crime, and PACE has done much to regulate the power of arrest by establishing a systematic structure based on the principles of seriousness and necessity. As well as a statutory power of arrest for ““arrestable”” and ““serious arrestable”” offences, a police officer in Northern Ireland has a general power of arrest, if considered necessary, for all offences, and the criteria justifying such an arrest are set out in Article 27 of the PACE order as it currently stands. However, much has changed in terms of crime and criminality and the nature of offending in the 18 years or so since PACE was first introduced, and the current arrangements are far from straightforward. Indeed, they were described by Association of Chief Police Officers at the time of the Home Office review of PACE as a ““myriad of complex laws”” and there is, undoubtedly, a need for greater clarity. In line with the changes made in England and Wales in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, Article 15 of the draft order will abolish the categories of ““arrestable”” and ““serious arrestable”” offences and replace them with a power of arrest for all offences, but, crucially, one that is based on the concept of necessity. Seriousness will remain a key consideration when a constable decides to make an arrest, but will now be one of a number of ““necessary”” factors to be taken into account. The officer must consider the necessity for an arrest in order to decide whether to effect one; and necessity requires the officer to set out the reasons why a person is being arrested and not dealt with by another means. In addition, a new accompanying PACE code of practice, dealing solely with arrest, will shortly be laid before the House. Based on a similar code introduced in England and Wales, the new code will regulate the exercise of the new arrest provisions. The new arrest powers have been in operation for over a year in England and Wales where they have bedded in well. We are confident that they will have a similar beneficial impact in Northern Ireland. Part V of the draft order makes a series of changes to the detention provisions aimed at reducing bureaucracy and making current procedures and processes more efficient and effective. In particular, new provisions will be introduced to allow police to review a person’s detention by telephone or video-conferencing facilities. I have also decided to remove the unnecessary and cumbersome provision that requires a person who is released on police bail to return to a police station no later than 28 days after being released. The importance of identification data in the investigation of crime cannot be underestimated and, as forensic science and technology advance at an unprecedented rate, it is vital that the police are provided with the necessary tools as they investigate crime and seek to bring criminals to account for their deeds. Part VI of the draft order deals with the questioning and treatment of persons by police, which have been amended on a number of occasions in recent times in line with England and Wales, but the draft order before the Committee makes a number of further changes in this area, again in line with England and Wales. For example, police will be able to take footwear impressions, photograph persons elsewhere other than a police station and take fingerprints without consent in order to confirm a person’s identity. As part of the drive towards greater operational efficiency and the reduction of bureaucracy, authorisation levels have been reduced from superintendent to inspector in a range of duties. These include carrying out an intimate search, the taking of intimate and non-intimate samples, delaying a suspect’s right to have someone informed of their arrest and delaying access to legal advice. I should also draw noble Lords’ attention to a new power that will allow police to carry out a speculative search of fingerprint/DNA databases from samples taken from deceased persons or body parts. That will be particularly valuable in the identification of victims of natural disasters such as the tsunamis in Asia and the hurricane in New Orleans. We were most grateful to those who responded to the consultation process on the draft order. After full consideration of all the points raised, we have decided to make a small number of changes to the published draft to reflect concerns expressed by a number of respondents. The main change relates to how 17 year-olds should be dealt with under PACE. That age group has been treated as adults since the inception of PACE. However, various international conventions define children as anyone under the age of 18. Indeed, just over a year ago, the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland was changed to reflect this, but no corresponding change was made to PACE. Although England and Wales continue to regard 17 year-olds as adults under PACE, this aspect is currently being considered by the Home Office. We have therefore decided to amend the definition of a child to include those aged 17. However, that important change presents the police and criminal justice agencies with some operational difficulties, and it will not be possible to commence it until those are fully considered and addressed. We have asked our officials to take that forward with some urgency. I believe the amendments contained in the order will greatly enhance the police and criminal evidence regime in Northern Ireland. In conjunction with radically revised, updated and expanded codes of practice, they will give police in Northern Ireland broadly the same range of powers as those already available to their colleagues in England and Wales and provide them with a much more modern, effective and efficient range of provisions in the fight against crime. But, in keeping with the spirit of PACE, they strike a fair and, we believe, proportionate balance between police powers and the rights of the individual. I therefore commend the order. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007.—(Lord Rooker.)