Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on 15 June 2026.

MLA

Ms Sian Mulholland

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

15 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5614397

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move amendment No 79:

I begin by recognising the seriousness and importance of what we are debating today. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is about whether our response makes further harm more likely or less likely. That is at the heart of the debate. When it came to tabling my amendments, I did not do so lightly. As a former youth worker, I tabled them because I genuinely believe that they can make a difference. I have listened to practitioners, victims and those with lived experience. We have tried to table amendments that are serious, workable and victim- and child-centred. I will address one element of negativity before I begin. For some Members, who are not even here for the beginning of the debate, to say that the amendments were not thought through and that Emma Sheerin, Patsy McGlone, of all people, and I are not fit to legislate is offensive and, frankly, off-the-scale arrogant. To say that the amendments were not thought through is grossly dismissive of the huge effort that was put into them by people who are far more knowledgeable and have far more expertise than I or, for that matter, anyone else in the House. That is the last bit of attention that I will give to that. I take the opportunity to record my thanks to and admiration for the individuals and organisations that have been at the heart of the campaign for decades, particularly my former party leader and former Minister of Justice David Ford, who initiated and commissioned a review of the youth justice system. Raising the minimum age was suggested then, 15 years ago. This debate has been a long time coming. It is not new. This is about changing a system that, on the evidence before us, is not working as well as it could. While not required to do so for an amendment to an Executive Bill, I have, over the past year, met as many stakeholders as possible. I continue to have a deeply held belief that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not only the right thing to do but a necessary step, as I now see it, towards a justice system that is more effective and more focused on preventing future harm. I will structure my remarks around the main concerns that were raised during that engagement and from comments made by others, because, for the most part, those concerns are real and genuine, and the debate is too important for there not to be a respectful, evidence-led debate. The first concern that I will address is the idea that raising the age means that children involved in offending behaviours will face no consequences or, as some who should know better have suggested, that harmful behaviour will somehow become legal. That is simply not what is being proposed. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility does not make harmful behaviour legal; it means that, below the age set by the Assembly, a child cannot be criminally prosecuted or convicted through the criminal justice system. That is not the same as saying that the behaviour is acceptable, ignored or without consequence. There is a profound difference between legalising harmful behaviour and changing how we respond to it, and it is wrong to present the choice as prosecution or nothing. Some will intervene or potentially get up to speak and offer lists of hypothetical events and ask whether it would be right that those children are not prosecuted. The amendment is not about removing accountability. It is not about denying that serious harm can happen. A child who causes harm must still face consequences, but the amendment asks whether criminal prosecution is the most effective way to reduce harm or whether a different response would prevent future victims. I want to address the claim that raising MACR means that no investigation or understanding of what happened can take place. That is simply not right. At present, where a child under 10 behaves in a way that would be an offence were they older, police cannot treat that child as having committed an offence. There is no criminal investigation of that child as a suspect because they are below the minimum age of criminal responsibility. That does not mean that there is no response. The incident can be recorded as a non-offence referral; risk can be assessed; parents and carers can be contacted; the matter can be flagged to a youth diversion officer; safeguarding referrals can still be made to social services where needed; and, in serious safeguarding cases, police can act to protect the child from significant harm, so, while the response changes, it does not disappear.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. Thank you, Minister. I will go on to that in my section on victims, but yes, the Victim Charter still outlines what can be done to support our victims. There is a difference between saying that a very young child should not be arrested, charged, prosecuted or convicted in the current way and saying that the police, social services or safeguarding partners cannot establish what happened; assess risks; record an incident; support a victim; and put an intervention in place. The PSNI's evidence to the Justice Committee was clear that the response does not disappear. Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald told the Committee that, if there were any concern about, for example, the child's well-being or safeguarding, the PSNI has good mechanisms in place with social services. It has the ability to conduct joint protocol investigations, and, if there were a safeguarding concern, it would make a referral to social services and ensure that those pathways are met. The route changes. The responsibility does not. The incident can still be reported. When I am asked whether raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility removes all consequences, my answer is clear: it does not. The amendment is not about removing accountability. However, it changes the route through which responsibility is addressed. It asks whether placing very young children into the criminal justice system is genuinely the best way to reduce harm. That is the test that we should apply: not whether the response sounds tough but whether it makes people and our communities safer. Experts in trauma-informed practice, including Professor Lisa Bunting and her colleagues, are clear on that point: trauma-informed accountability does not ask what is wrong with the child and then stop there. It asks, "What has happened to the child? What harm have they caused? What risk do they pose? What risks are they facing? What response will promote safety, responsibility and recovery? Those are more demanding questions, not easier ones. Victim Support made an important point to me about restorative justice. It described restorative justice as "extremely powerful" but also warned that it is, too often, misunderstood as the soft option. In reality, when it is safe, victim-led and properly facilitated, restorative justice can be one of the most demanding forms of accountability. It can require a child to face the harm that they have caused and accept that responsibility. Importantly, for victims, restorative practices can offer what a traditional judicial process does not always provide: acknowledgement, explanation, apology, reparation and, most important, reassurance that the behaviour is being addressed.

1,210 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification