Unionist row as Burrows accuses justice committee of lacking 'expertise and tenacity' over accepting PSNI 'side note'
A row has erupted between unionists after Jon Burrows accused Stormont’s justice committee of not having “the expertise and tenacity” to properly scrutinise policing issues – after it accepted a “side note” instead of a legal protection for PSNI officers.
The DUP chair of the committee has hit back – saying the issue is fundamentally the responsibility of the minister Naomi Long, and questioning why the UUP boss is raising the issue now.
Paul Frew said female police officers in Northern Ireland “have added protection” thanks to the group’s work.
The row relates to updates to how police handle transgender detainees in light of last year’s UK Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman.
Department of Justice (DoJ) legal guidance for the PSNI – known as Pace – means police officers can decline to search someone of the opposite biological sex, whether they identify as transgender or not.
However, a commitment to ensure police officers faced no career detriment if they declined to search someone of the opposite sex was not included in Pace.
Naomi Long’s officials wouldn’t put that in the statutory guidance because it was “PSNI operational”. But DoJ did include a requirement for police to attempt to find officers willing to search detainees of the opposite sex.
Instead, after deliberations with the justice committee, the minister published a “side note”. That note merely set out that the PSNI had had accepted guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
That guidance states that “there will be no career detriment to any officer or staff member who declines to conduct a search involving a transgender person”. The DoJ made no such undertaking in Pace.
Jon Burrows has told the News Letter there was an opportunity “to put clear protections for female PSNI officers and staff” into Pace but this was not done “and they were left to a side note”.
The UUP boss said: “The NPCC guidance is clear that there would be no detriment to a female officers refusing to search a biological male and that being asked to do so by a more senior officer was ‘not a lawful order’.
“At the very least this should have been put prominently in the Codes of Practice - not a side note.
“It is the code of practice that has legal status, that is available in every custody suite, that every prisoner is offered a copy of and that is the ‘bible’ for police officers.
“The justice committee should have insisted the protections where in the Codes of Practice. Too often the justice committee has, like the Policing Board, lacked the expertise and tenacity to really scrutinise policing and justice issues”.
The committee chair, DUP MLA Paul Frew, says minister Naomi Long is responsible for “the department’s actions or lack of action” – and the amendments to PACE Codes “are on the Justice Minister so she should speak to it and address any concerns people have”.
“I believe the Justice Ministers actions around this to be wrongheaded”, Mr Frew said.
“The Justice Committee, which includes Doug Beattie MLA a representative of the UUP throughout all this time who was speaking and acting on behalf of the UUP, scrutinised this subject in great detail, and DUP members asked the Minister to amend the PACE codes to take into account the supreme court ruling at the time.
“The Minister refused stating that they couldn’t do so as it’s a PSNI operational issue rather than legislative. The committee was not convinced so it scrutinised this issue from 27th Feb 2025 to 19 March 2026 – holding up the amendments to the Pace codes until we got further assurances from the justice minister and chief constable that they would adopt the NPCC guidance in full and that there would be an adjoining note to the Pace Codes from the DoJ providing added assurance for female police officers that there would be no determent to their career if or when they refused to conduct an intimate search on a male. At all times, the DUP engaged with the Police Federation and with our leadership.
“The leader of the UUP could have raised this matter at any point of his leadership, during which time I’m sure his party colleague would have been briefing him extensively, but he chose not to until now.
“I sincerely hope he’s not using this as some new front with his ex-colleague Doug Beattie, who is a valued member of the committee. The protection of female police officers is too important”, Mr Frew said.
DoJ has previously said: “Officers have the right to refuse to search any individual without detriment to their career, so the Minister does not agree with those who claim that this puts officers in an invidious position”.