Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 8 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Colin McGrath

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

8 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5600799

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I commend the Chair of the Committee for not being one bit obnoxious in his speech. That was quite an achievement. I hope to, likewise, not be obnoxious, but I will do so in a much shorter time than the hour and 10 minutes that we have just been subjected to. Later contributions may be a little bit shorter to help us all along. This group brings together a diverse set of amendments, but, despite covering very different subject matter, they are united by a common theme. At their core, the amendments ask us whether our justice system is equipped to deal with modern challenges. They seek to tackle organised criminality and exploitation while also ensuring that our laws reflect our modern values. In some cases, that means giving law enforcement new powers to pursue those who direct criminal enterprises and profit from the misery of others. In other cases, it means recognising that certain offences belong to a different era and no longer have a place on our statute book. With that in mind, the SDLP will support the amendments in the group. Amendment Nos 45 to 48 relate to organised crime groups. For too long, the North has suffered the corrosive impact of organised criminality. Whether through drug dealing, extortion, intimidation, fuel laundering, human trafficking or the continuing influence of paramilitary structures in some communities, organised crime continues to undermine public confidence, damage local economies and blight lives. The amendments help to address a significant gap in our legislative framework. They provide a statutory definition of an "organised crime group" and create the offences of participating in and directing the criminal activities of such groups. They allow our justice system to target not only those who carry out criminal acts but those who organise and facilitate such acts and, importantly, those who profit from them. For the SDLP, tackling organised crime and tackling paramilitarism are inseparable objectives. It is important that our institutions have the legal tools necessary to disrupt the criminal networks that operate in our communities. In reality, many of the organisations that continue to exercise coercive influence in parts of Northern Ireland increasingly cloak themselves in criminality. The amendments strengthen the ability of local agencies to pursue those who direct and benefit from organised criminal activity, and they represent an important step in tackling the scourge of paramilitarism. Amendment No 70, which repeals a number of historical public order offences, represents welcome and overdue reform. Across these islands and internationally, there is a growing recognition that outdated vagrancy laws have too often criminalised poverty and homelessness rather than addressing their causes. Homelessness charities, human rights organisations and those who work directly with rough sleepers have consistently argued that sleeping rough should never be treated as a criminal matter. People experiencing homelessness are often among the most vulnerable in our society. They are far more likely to have experienced trauma, poor mental health, addiction, family breakdown or financial crisis. They need support, intervention and access to housing; they do not need criminal records. At the same time, repealing outdated vagrancy offences should not be confused with tolerating criminal behaviour. We recognise the concerns that have been raised about the criminality that can sometimes be associated with public spaces. We therefore welcome amendment No 71, which creates an offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence, and amendment No 72, which targets those who organise, facilitate or profit from begging for gain. We believe that those amendments strike the correct balance. They ensure that the law focuses on those who seek to exploit others or to commit offences, rather than penalising people simply because they are poor, vulnerable or without a home. We also welcome amendment No 73, which abolishes the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Those offences have long fallen into disuse and have no place in a modern democratic society that is committed to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Their removal has not only practical but symbolic importance. Around the world, individuals continue to face imprisonment, persecution and, in some cases, even death because of blasphemy laws. Journalists, activists, religious minorities and those of no faith continue to be targeted under such legislation.

Yes, of course.

Yes. If you listened on, you would know that we have already made that point. Nobody has been charged with blasphemy, but given that we still have it on the statute book, how can we talk convincingly when other places and other people are being impacted by that?

Absolutely. Again, that supports the point that we are trying to make. You cannot credibly tell people that they should not be persecuting people if you have the same rules on your own books. The amendment is about removing that and allowing clarity and giving us the confidence to go and challenge other places about those offences without fear that we are going to be hit for some reason because we still have those outdated laws, even if nobody has been charged under them. As I say, if we wish to speak with credibility when criticising jurisdictions that criminalise dissent, non-belief or criticism of religion, we must ensure that our own laws are consistent with those values.

If I must.

Again, I have already referenced that. It is important to listen to all the words that I say and allow me to progress, because many of those questions have been answered. Repealing these offences sends a clear signal that freedom of thought and expression are fundamental democratic principles and that they deserve protection. The SDLP will also support amendment No 78 concerning the advertising of sexual services. Members will be aware of the extensive work that has been carried out by the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation and the evidence that has been gathered from survivors, academics, front-line organisations and law enforcement agencies. That work highlighted the role that online advertising can play in facilitating sexual exploitation, trafficking and coercion. While much of that activity takes place out of public view, the evidence points to clear links between online advertising platforms and the exploitation of vulnerable women. We have a responsibility to ensure that our laws keep pace with the changing nature of exploitation and abuse, particularly in an increasingly digital world. Measures aimed at disrupting the infrastructure that facilitates sexual exploitation deserve support. For that reason, we will support the amendment. Finally, amendment Nos 88 and 89 represent the Northern Ireland equivalent of Ruby's law. These amendments recognise something that many survivors of domestic abuse and those working in the sector have understood for a long time: abusers frequently use animals as a means of coercion, control and intimidation. Threatening to harm a family pet, harming an animal or using an animal to exert psychological pressure can have a devastating impact on victims and their children. For many households, pets are cherished members of the family. Abusers know that, and, in some cases, they deliberately exploit those emotional bonds in order to maintain control. Domestic abuse is about power and coercion. It is about creating fear and limiting the autonomy of the other person. These amendments rightly recognise that threats against animals can form part of that pattern of abuse and should be treated accordingly. By explicitly recognising threats or harm to animals as behaviour that is capable of constituting domestic abuse, these amendments strengthen protection for victims and ensure that the law reflects the reality of coercive control as it is experienced in practice. Taken together, the amendments modernise our law, strengthen our ability to tackle organised crime and exploitation, remove outdated offences that no longer reflect modern values and provide greater protections for victims of abuse. For all those very good reasons, the SDLP will support the amendments in this group.

1,306 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:55 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