Robust probe into justice body’s finances needed: DUP MLA

South Antrim MLA Trevor Clarke was commenting following the launch of a probe into the finances of Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI).

It emerged on Thursday that Stormont’s Executive Office (TEO) has suspended the CRJI’s funding until further notice.

CRJI – which describes itself as working to develop “positive solutions that repair harm” and reduce conflict – received £1.2 million from the TEO during the last financial year, but sits outside the mainstream criminal justice system.

A spokesperson for the Executive Office said: “CRJI notified TEO of issues of concern. In line with TEO protocol, an internal investigation is under way and funding has been suspended until the matter is resolved.

“It would not be appropriate to comment further.”

On Friday, Mr Clarke said: “Every project funded from the public purse must be held to the highest standards. Any concerns relating to the governance of CRJI must be investigated robustly and there is a duty on the relevant statutory bodies to act in a proactive and precautionary way. This must not just relate to funding from the Executive Office but all public funding streams.”

Mr Clarke added: “Recently the relationship between CRJI and the PSNI has rightly come under significant scrutiny. Valid concern has been raised about the level of influence handed to this group in developing contentious new policy, including the Review of Policing in South Armagh.”

He went on to say: “Confirmation that a senior police officer was on the board of CRJI will amplify rather than assuage concerns around fairness and proportionality.

“Does the PSNI replicate this level of engagement toward other victims’ groups, including those representing communities targeted by the IRA?”

In a statement posted on social media on Thursday evening, CRJI chairman Michael O’Hara said that CRJI will “cooperate fully with any external investigation which arises,” and added: “An internal investigation is also ongoing and it would therefore be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial to that process to make further public comment at this juncture.”