Dr Hendron (Chairperson)
Ms Armitage
Mrs Courtney
Mr Gallagher
Mr Hamilton

Det Chief Inspector ) Police Service of
William McAuley ) Northern Ireland

The Chairperson: Welcome Det Chief Inspector William McAuley, the care co-ordinator for Northern Ireland. We are interested in hearing about the Police Act 1997 with regard to what is known as soft information. We understand that Part V of the Act does not apply in Northern Ireland yet. Would you please tell us a bit about that?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) would welcome the enactment of Part V of the Police Act 1997 as it feels handicapped by the fact that it does not have that piece of legislation. At present, we have the ability, under the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) arrangements, to disclose criminal convictions in relation to people applying to work with children or vulnerable adults in the long term. However, the legislation limits information to criminal convictions: it does not include soft information or soft intelligence.

We have a process of disclosure based on stated cases — in other words, on stated law — in how we disclose further information that could be included in the category of soft information and soft intelligence. It is a lengthy, convoluted procedure that could be easily resolved by the enactment of Part V of the Act. There will be nothing new as regards the amount of information that would be disclosed, but the disclosure of the information would be much more time effective and detailed in content.

The Chairperson: Thank you, that is very helpful. Part V of the Act has come into effect in England and Wales. Has that been advantageous to your colleagues there?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes, especially regarding the timing of the disclosure of information. As people are applying for employment, time is of the essence as regards disclosure because of application and interview procedures. Part V of the Police Act 1997 allows that process to happen very quickly. Information can be disclosed speedily. Without the legislation in Part V, it takes a long time to reach a decision about whether to disclose information.

The Chairperson: Is the implementation of Part V crucial to the effective operation of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes.

Ms Armitage: The Committee has been alerted to the fact that cross-border vetting is difficult, as the system in the Republic of Ireland is not as advanced as that in Northern Ireland. A person unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable people could move from the Irish Republic and take up employment in Northern Ireland. What checks would be appropriate? Could the vetting system be difficult or non-existent due to the inadequacies in the Republic?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: There are difficulties. If a PECS application were made to the PSNI about someone who has been previously resident in the Republic of Ireland, we would communicate with the Garda Síochána as regards criminal records and intelligence held. That information tends to be limited because of the systems that exist in the Republic.

Ms Armitage: Is there a good relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána over vetting procedures?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: I have worked in child protection for a long time, and the relationships are excellent, particularly in the area of child protection.

Ms Armitage: Do they have the same procedures?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: The Republic of Ireland is behind us in relation to its legislation and procedures for trying to protect children. It enacted its Sex Offenders Bill two years ago, whereas the Sex Offenders Act was enacted in Britain in 1997. The Republic of Ireland is catching up.

Ms Armitage: What steps could be taken to enhance procedures? Is there much movement across the border?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: There is a significant movement of sex offenders. There was a great deal of movement prior to 1999-2000. We assumed that it was because people were not required to register in the South and felt that moving there freed them from restrictions or mandated imposition by the Garda Síochána or anyone else. The situation changed with the introduction of the Sex Offenders Act 2001, and we have found that many of those people have now come back to the North of Ireland.

Ms Armitage: If someone from Northern Ireland flees to the Republic, would it be difficult to get that person back? Would we go so far as to use an extradition order for a child sex offender?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes. We have to meet the same criteria for extradition as for any other criminal offence. We have had no significant difficulties using the extradition process for serious sexual crime and child abuse offences. The only difficult case involved the now notorious Fr Brendan Smyth. That had repercussions, and since then, our ability to secure people who flee to the Republic of Ireland for prosecution in the North has improved greatly.

Ms Armitage: Is that quite a quick process?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: No.

Ms Armitage: Are those people free to move around while you are waiting for them?

Det Chief Insp McCauley: It is difficult to say, but I think they move quite freely. There is provision for the prosecution of people who have committed serious sexual assaults or child abuse in both jurisdictions. We can prosecute citizens of the UK for offences committed in the South of Ireland. That happens on the odd occasion and avoids the necessity for extradition. The difficulty arises from the process of extradition, which is long and complicated. We must be able to show sufficient evidence to a court in Northern Ireland to make the initial application for extradition, which is sometimes difficult.

Ms Armitage: Do you have to send people back to the Republic who flee to Northern Ireland?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes. The extradition process works in both jurisdictions.

Mrs Courtney: The schedule of the Bill lists many offences. The PSNI has suggested an amendment to paragraph 3(d). Would you expand on the reason for the amendment? I am thinking about the kidnapping of a young boy in Germany on Monday. The public were not told: the family kept it quiet and paid the ransom. However, the boy’s body was found later, and it is thought that he was probably murdered on the day that he was kidnapped. That is a dreadful case. However, it could happen here.

Det Chief Insp McAuley: The idea behind the schedule is to list the offences to which the rest of the legislation applies. Other offences need to be included. For example, I would include offences under the mental health legislation, such as sexual intercourse with people who have been statemented.

It is difficult to say whether it is an effective method of providing protection. The list of offences is fairly exhaustive, though there are a few others that we would like to see included. If we were to include the offence of kidnapping, it would be necessary to identify some connection between that offence and child protection. If the offence involved the abduction or kidnapping of a child, it should be included in the list. However, with regard to offences in the UK, a person who kidnaps a child would normally be prosecuted under abduction, which carries a capital penalty of life imprisonment. The preference is always to prosecute for the most serious offence.

Mrs Courtney: There is an offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 of abduction of girl with intent to have carnal knowledge. That is a very specific offence towards a girl. I wonder why the offences listed apply to some people but not to others.

Mr Hamilton: Perhaps I might return to the vetting procedures, in particular those of a cross-border nature. You said that the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána regarding cross-border vetting procedures was limited. What do you mean by "limited"? What type of information is available to you, and what is not?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: The information generally available is post-conviction. Someone will have been tried before a court, convicted, and a sentence will have been imposed. That information is easily available; getting beyond that information is difficult and limited because of procedural problems.

In Northern Ireland, specialist care units investigate child abuse and serious sexual offences. Those units are easily identified and information made available. The Garda Síochána does not have that type of structure in its investigative methods. Very often, serious offences are investigated by local uniformed gardaí, and it is sometimes difficult to make the necessary contacts with those who know the ins and outs of an offence. It is limited because of the existing structures rather than by intent.

The Chairperson: A representative from the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association (SSAFA) gave evidence concerning regiments moving between Northern Ireland, Germany and other places and the impact of that on child protection. Is there any link between the PSNI and the armed forces as regards child protection?

Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes. I have a counterpart in the Office of the General Officer Commanding Land Forces (GOC) at Thiepval who takes the military lead on child protection, and we meet frequently. We also have a contact in SSAFA. All criminal convictions, whether in a civil court or a result of court martial, are available on the police national computer, so I have access to that type of information directly.

I can make further enquiries with organisations such as SSAFA. The PSNI offers a place for military welfare staff to train so that they can have the same provisions and protocols applied in military jurisdiction as in civil jurisdiction. When a case of child abuse is investigated in a military jurisdiction — in other words in an army barracks or camp — the same protocols and procedures are applied as would be applied in the rest of the Province.

The Chairperson: Thank you very much.