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 5614585

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you. I will move on to serious harm, as we have been discussing. That is where some of the hardest questions will arise. That is why my amendment includes exceptions for:

"murder, manslaughter, rape or assault by penetration".

I recognise the seriousness of those offences, the public concern and the need for safeguards. Offences that are committed by children aged between 10 and 13 are rarely at the serious end of the spectrum. The PPS has confirmed that, when such cases arise, they are rare and exceptional. In the past six years, only one child of that age has been sentenced to custody in the Juvenile Justice Centre. We cannot build an entire law around the most exceptional cases while ignoring the much larger group of children whose behaviour is linked to trauma, family stress, poor attendance at school and all the things that we have already discussed. The stakeholder engagement that I have had suggests that we need to distinguish between two groups. For the wider 10-to-13 cohort, behaviour is often early or emerging and is linked to trauma and unmet need. Risk may be escalating. Often, it can be addressed through early intervention and voluntary engagement, as I have already discussed. However, there is that smaller and more complex group: children who are involved in serious violence, harmful sexual behaviour, repeated high-risk behaviour or significant escalation. That cohort requires a serious specialist pathway, not slogans, panic or the emotionalising of their crime. That is where the independent social worker Marcella Leonard's evidence was so important, both when I met her and through reading her work. She has substantial expertise in domestic violence, sexual violence, safeguarding, serious case reviews and harmful sexual behaviours. She emphasised that serious cases, particularly those that involve harmful sexual behaviour, should be addressed through specialist therapeutic and safeguarding pathways. She has dedicated her entire career to this. Her evidence was that appropriate, specialised services already exist but are not accessed early enough, not consistently used and not well integrated into system pathways. That is one of the reasons why I chose that as the subject of my North Antrim Adjournment debate: the system is a postcode lottery at this time. She made the point that serious cases are often predictable and preventable but that early warning signs are frequently missed, and delays in referral increase the risk of escalation. She highlighted a major gap for 10- to 13-year-olds displaying harmful sexual behaviour, interpersonal violence and child-to-parent violence. However, her proposal was not to do nothing, nor was it criminalisation or mandatory detention. She proposed mandatory referral; assessment; therapeutic intervention; expansion of harmful sexual behaviour frameworks, where appropriate; and an invest-to-save approach. When I was doing my research, I saw that that was exactly the realism that the debate needed. The question is not whether serious harm should be addressed — of course it should — but whether the system can provide a credible, consistent and effective pathway for the small number of high-risk cases and whether we are willing to build that system properly. From the discussions that I have had so far with the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and others I believe that there is a willingness to build that system to better move forward. The same is true when Members raise the issues of violence against women and girls, school safety, bullying or harmful sexual behaviour. No one denies that those are really serious concerns, but keeping MACR at 10 is not a strategy to end violence against women and girls. Women and girls are protected not by slogans but by early intervention, safeguarding, school safety planning, specialist support, relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools and being open to what healthy relationships look like. It is about taking serious action against harmful behaviour before it escalates — nipping it in the bud. If Members want to invoke the issue of violence against women and girls, they should listen to the organisations that work with victims and survivors every day. Women's Aid and Victim Support support raising MACR alongside having robust welfare-based structures. That is not weakness on harm; it is about how we intervene earlier and prevent harm from escalating.

Oh, sorry. Yes. Go ahead, Maurice.

Thank you, Maurice. There will be those stories of genuine harm. No one in the Chamber can say that we already have a perfect system. I do not believe that we do. However, we should strive for better, which is why I come back to my evidence. If we are to prevent further victims, we need to look at the best ways in our arsenal to interrupt offending behaviour. You raise legitimate concerns about social services. When we look at the framework and the foundations that we need to put in place, such concerns can absolutely be part of it. We need to look at how we protect and nurture, and, again, that comes back to family support and how we ensure that we are looking at multidisciplinary frameworks that build a safety net around families. That is what I come back to. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I am nearing the end of my speech. I looked up who has made the longest speech in the Northern Ireland Assembly. There seems to be a trend amongst North Antrim MLAs.

It was not the Chairman. It was former Member from North Antrim Daithí McKay at two hours and 10 minutes. I promise that I am not aiming to beat it.

I think that you came a close second, Chairman.

Absolutely.

Or we are full of hot air. We have lots to say. I turn to the amendments specifically, because each asks us in —.

Yes, the other Member for North Antrim wants to make an intervention.

They would be possible —

— voluntarily. I will give way.

Yes —.

May I please get on to the amendments?

You will get time to ask questions to the Minister during your contribution. If it is OK, I want to get to the amendments and go through them. My amendment No 79 tries to strike a careful and responsible balance. It raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 because the evidence tells us that 10, 11, 12 or 13 is too young for routine criminal prosecution. It does so because international standards point us to it being at least 14. It does so because child development, neuroscience, trauma evidence, youth justice practice and stakeholder engagement all point us away from early criminalisation and towards earlier, structured, child-centred intervention. I have, however, listened to the concerns that have been raised about cases where there is the most serious harm. That is why my amendment and the joint amendment include exceptions for those most serious of offences. I understand the position of some, particularly those in the children's rights sector and those advocates, who would prefer there to be no exceptions. I understand that, but I have tabled an amendment that moves away from the current law whilst recognising the particular sensitivity and the seriousness of those offences. The need to build the confidence of the public was really clear in the stakeholder evidence that I took on board. Amendment No 80 builds in a review after five years. I have talked about that before. It is about coming back to the evidence and asking whether victims are being properly supported, whether we can learn from what is happening and what is working well, whether reoffending is being reduced, whether services are responding quickly enough, and whether the age should potentially be raised even further. Good law does not end at the point of receiving Royal Assent. It continues right through the implementation, scrutiny and review stages. Amendment No 82 is the joint amendment, which I co-signed with Emma Sheerin MLA and Patsy McGlone MLA. It is another attempt to move the Assembly forward. It is a serious, thoughtful and meaningful reform. It says:

"no child under the age of 12 can be guilty of an offence."

It also says that 12- and 13-year olds should only be criminally responsible for the most serious listed offences. I will also speak, with respect, about amendment No 81 from Gerry Carroll, which would raise the age to 16 without exceptions. I understand why he has tabled that amendment. Many organisations that work directly with children and young people believe that 16 is the right age. They point to the reality that a 14- or 15-year-old is still a child. They point to neuroscience, trauma, care experience, poverty and exploitation. Those are serious points, and I do not dismiss the concerns behind them. Members will know that I have long supported an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is not a new position for me. Whilst it has not been debated before, it is not a new debate for the Assembly. I do not think that we are quite there yet. The independent youth justice review recommended that MACR be raised immediately to 12 with consideration being given to the further increase to 14 within three years.

Right now, I would not. I would rather focus on what is in front of me. If, in five years' time, the review comes back, and we see that the change is working really well, perhaps then we can move to 16. Right now, however, that is not for me. I say that with full respect to those who hold that position, including you, Gerry. Today, I am asking the House to support a change that, I believe, can command broader support, can be implemented responsibly and is the right step for Northern Ireland now. Raising the age to 14 would represent major and long-overdue reform. It would meet the minimum international standard as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and it would force a proper alternative framework to be developed. My amendment No 80 would allow us to return to the evidence, assess its impact and consider any further changes in a properly informed way. I believe that raising the age to 14, with limited exceptions, is, for two reasons, the most pragmatic route to take. First, it would allow us to design, test and embed a new framework for responding to concerning behaviour in a way that is manageable, properly monitored and properly resourced. Secondly, it would build confidence in reform. If the public, victims, families, the police, social workers, schools and communities can see that children are still being held accountable, that victims are still supported and that behaviour is being addressed earlier, we create the conditions for trust in a new approach. I say respectfully that I understand why amendment No 81 was tabled, but, beyond the current law, it is not there now. Hopefully, the Assembly will return to the evidence. Gerry Carroll’s amendment No 85, which would provide for a review following the joint amendment, reflects an important principle, which is that, whatever route the Assembly chooses, there has to be review. We cannot simply either pass or not pass a reform and then leave it at that, so I support that amendment. I will now turn to the amendments from Paul Frew and his colleagues tabled. I understand why Mr Frew has raised concerns, because he has done so previously at the Justice Committee and in the media. His concerns are not unreasonable. They point to something quite important, which is that reform cannot be done simply by changing a number in law and hoping for the best. I have been clear with the Member that there has to be a framework, with clear duties and clear referral routes. I agree with all that, but that is where I part company with Mr Frew. Amendment No 83 would have the effect of removing the caveated increase to 14 and leaving the new minimum age of criminal responsibility at 12. At the moment, I do not believe that that amendment goes far enough. The youth justice review recommended raising the age to 12 immediately, followed by a move to 14. That was in 2011. We are not really leading on reform. Rather, we are just catching up. Amendment No 84 would remove the specific, tightly drawn exceptions in the cross-party amendment No 82 for children aged 12 and 13 and replace them with a much broader exception for offences that are triable on indictment. I would point out that, in the past year, there were only 15 indictable offences in the most serious category. In practice, I would worry that that would create an inconsistent and too wide a route back into criminalisation. The question that I will always return to is this: what response will make people safer? I therefore cannot support amendments that broaden the route back to criminalisation. They may feel like a safety net, but they risk becoming a trapdoor. I welcome the fact that Doug Beattie's amendment No 86 recognises that the current age of 10 is too low. That matters, but raising the age only to 12 while still allowing a route back into the criminal justice system for 10- and 11-year-olds does not go far enough.

2,213 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