Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5624614

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will return to examining the amendments in front of us. I will concentrate solely on the group 6 amendments. What are the group 6 amendments all about? They are not about whether children should be treated differently from adults, as they should be, nor are they about whether vulnerable children deserve support, intervention and rehabilitation, as they do. The focus of that group of amendments is much narrower and more practical. It is on whether Northern Ireland should remove the criminal justice system's ability to deal with the most serious offending committed by children aged between 10 and 12 years old. The answer to that question is a resounding no. That is why 30 MLAs signed the petitions of concern. They felt passionately that raising the age before you can commit an offence is reckless. Northern Ireland does not operate a harsh and punitive regime for children. Our youth justice system is already built on diversion. It already recognises that children are different, and it already seeks rehabilitation rather than punishment. Youth conferences, diversionary disposals, supervision and support are already at the heart of the justice system. The reality is that custody is rare. Prosecution is often the last resort. The current law already provides a balanced framework. What concerns me is that amendment No 82 tried to go further, beyond what is there and beyond recognising childhood. It tried to create a situation where a child aged 11 or under could not commit an offence and where those aged 12 and 13 could be prosecuted for only five offences: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. That is all. Everything else falls outside criminal law. I noticed that Mr McNulty tried to change the narrative, but the events of recent days should have caused Members to reflect. However, they did not. We should not pretend that children aged between 10 and 13 were not engaged in serious offences. If the House had been allowed to pass amendment No 82, it would have positively encouraged children between 10 and 13 to commit crimes when disorder breaks out without fear that the law would apply to them. Take the example of the bus that we saw burnt in east Belfast just a few days ago. Can the Members who wanted to support that amendment say for certain that no child under 13 was involved?

Let us look at a real-life example that is well documented. I am happy to give way to Ms Sheerin.

Absolutely, and there is no problem going after those people, but, at the same time, if a child was engaged in that activity — I refer to Sam McBride's comments on 'The Nolan Show' earlier this week when he said that he saw very, very young people out on the streets on Thursday night when he was there. However, we cannot say, "Well, whatever crimes you have committed, that is OK. We can talk about it after". No, there has to be some responsibility for your actions. That has to be at the core. If there is a victim, making an excuse for somebody is wrong. If something had happened due to those attacks and a victim was left at the end of it, I am sorry, but I would not say to them, "But that person was too young". That person decided to engage in that activity.

Ah, the mask has slipped. That is the narrative that the liberal elite is trying to focus on. There were no political comments that sent anybody on to the streets, and I want to be clear about that.

Mr Dickson, if you want to make an intervention, I am happy to take one.

We could play this game all night. Does that not mean that the same would apply when you name a play park, like the Raymond McCreesh play park, after a terrorist? On that basis —.

I am glad to hear that we are in agreement on that.

Yes.

As I get to the end of my speech, I want to get to a point where I am really focusing in on the primary reason why I decided to sign a petition of concern, based on what passing amendment No 82 would have unhinged and unleashed on Northern Ireland. I want to look at a real-life example that is well documented, so let us consider what happened in Edlington in 2009. Two brothers, aged 10 and 11, abducted two younger boys. They subjected them to a prolonged ordeal that involved beatings, strangulation, burning, humiliation and threats to kill. One of the victims suffered catastrophic injuries, and both were left for dead. Thankfully, they survived. However, had that happened in Northern Ireland and had amendment No 82 been in place at that stage, neither of those young boys would have faced any criminal sanction. That should be a lesson for us all to heed. The amendment that the liberal elite were all piling in behind and coming together on was, indeed, dangerous and would have led to more children being exploited due to there being no risk of prosecution until the age of 14, except for a cherry-picked list of offences based on public perception rather than sound evidence. The 30 MLAs who triggered the petition of concern have done the majority in the Chamber a great service. The 30 MLAs have ensured that you will not have to look a mother, father, son or daughter in the eye when a crime has been committed and the guilty party cannot even be held responsible. My conscience is clear. The decision that we took was for the greater good, and what we did was the right course of action. I look forward, in the coming days and weeks, that when young people in our communities get caught up in trouble, they will see the same urgency, the same compassion and the same willingness to act from the bail bondsmen, Tennyson and Donnelly, when they put their hand in their pocket when the woke wagon rolls into town. I finish with this. I make no bones about it at all. I signed the petition of concern on the basis that I did not trust Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and People Before Profit to get this right. I could not trust them to put victims before their ideology, all under the guise of progressive politics, so I am glad that 30 MLAs took a stand to ensure that the amendment would not be railroaded through and that victims would be heard instead of the ideology that those who signed the amendment were wanting to push.

1,111 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: close call Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups

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