Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Justin McNulty

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5624515

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to speak on the amendment regarding the age of criminal responsibility, which the SDLP has co-sponsored. Some Members have used the racist riots of the past week to cast the amendment in a bad light, appropriating the experiences of children — children who, quite obviously, were exploited by paramilitary groups, racist extremists and violent rioters — to justify criminalising them. That narrative must be strongly refuted to reassure people of the positive impacts that the amendment would bring. Children who come into contact with the justice system at a young age are often among the most vulnerable in society, experiencing poverty, trauma, exploitation and unmet need. Children in those circumstances should not be criminalised. Criminalisation can bring long-term consequences for those children and their families such as a decreased likelihood of their completing school and obtaining educational qualifications. It can also have downstream implications for future job prospects. Children's involvement with the criminal justice system has been linked to an increase in the likelihood of their offending. Why would anyone support that? The proposed amendment would raise the general age of criminal responsibility to 14, which is the recommendation of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, as well as being the European and world average age. That best practice is shaped by advances in understanding brain development: in particular, that children's frontal lobes will contribute to reasoning, problem solving, prioritisation, consequential thinking and regulation of emotions that are not fully developed. Children have less ability to adequately and appropriately participate in criminal justice proceedings. They are often more inclined to make false confessions. They have limited capacity to understand legal processes and court proceedings as well as the significance of questions asked and answers given, which decreases the likelihood of determining the truth and achieving justice.

The amendment would retain limited exceptions, in the case of children aged 12 or 13, for the most serious offences, including murder, manslaughter and rape. That represents a balanced approach that reflects children's rights and the need for accountability in the gravest cases.

It is important to highlight the fact that an absence of criminal responsibility is not a complete absence of consequence or intervention. Ensuring that children receive the necessary supports, including the expertise of social workers and therapists, educational supports, anti-poverty supports and other interventions is key. Resources must be directed towards the evidence-based methods of early intervention, diversion and support that genuinely reduce future harm, victimisation and criminalisation. The SDLP stands by the amendment as being the right thing to do to support our children. We should surely all endeavour to catch up with the rest of the world through this common-sense legislation that recognises the simple matter that children do not have the mental capacity to be held criminally responsible.

466 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