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 5614645

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will jump forward three pages in my speech, given that the Minister has outlined exactly and probably much more succinctly what I was going to say. There is also an implementation issue with amendment No 86, which was not mentioned. Setting a two-year time frame may sound reassuring, but it does not answer the practical question of what will happen if the framework is not ready within two years. It is too important to commence simply because the date has arrived. If there is no mandatory intervention mechanism, the framework is not in place and there is no clarity on information-sharing, it would create precisely the gap that Members are worried about. That does not mean that implementation should be used as an excuse for delay; it means that we have to set clear statutory requirements — clear milestones. We can and should legislate for reform now and say that 10 is too young. We cannot pretend that a date in the Bill, by itself, will build the infrastructure and the necessary framework that children, victims, families, police and communities need. The responsible route is to accept the principle, pass the reform and require the Executive to build the framework before commencement, otherwise we risk replacing one flawed system with another. I turn now to the people at the heart of the debate. I think of the child whose school attendance has collapsed; the child in care who has been moved from placement to placement, often with a plastic bag and nothing else; the child who is living with domestic abuse; the child with unmet needs who is struggling in school; the child who is being exploited by older people who they thought were safe or were friends; the child who has caused harm but has also experienced harm. I think about the victims: the person who should never have been hurt; the family that should never have been frightened; the child who deserved protection, support and justice; the teacher who deserved a safe workplace. A good justice system must be able to hold both truths at once. Harm has been caused, and harm matters, but if we are serious about preventing the next victim, we must also ask what response is most likely to change the child's behaviour. That is why amendment No 79 and this work are not about choosing children over victims. It is about recognising that the best way to support future victims is to prevent further harm, yet our current law states that a child of 10 can be held criminally responsible. At 10, a child is still in primary school, so I just cannot accept that. Ten is too young. It is too young, if we are serious about child development, about trauma, about prevention and about victims.

I have talked to others about that. Again, it is about public perception and public confidence. That is why it goes hand in hand with a review. We need to look at assessing, after five years, which of the exceptions have been used. We know that harm caused by young children, including serious harm of the sort that I put into my exceptions, is very rare. Those are the offences that are recognised as causing the most serious harm, so that is why they are in there. It is a public confidence measure and a safeguard in that respect. However, I understand where the question has come from. It is about focusing on the offence level.

I am about to finish, but go ahead.

I —.

But I have.

I would like you to sit down. Thank you.

Sorry. Thank you.

Hence why I stood, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was aware of that ruling. It has nothing to do with outrage; it is about looking at the most serious crimes. It has nothing to do with moral or public outrage. That is a really offensive suggestion. The amendment has been described as "reckless" and "beyond stupid". I disagree. What is reckless is leaving the law unchanged, despite the evidence and data. What is reckless is confusing prosecution with prevention. What is reckless is knowing that the current system is not delivering the outcome that we want for victims, children or communities but deciding that change is simply too difficult. The amendment has been shaped by evidence, informed by lived experience and challenged by and grounded in what we now know from stakeholders about childhood development, trauma and effective intervention. The real question that we have before us today is not about whether change carries risk; it is about whether doing nothing, and maintaining the status quo, carries a greater risk still. I commend the amendment to the House.

Will the Member give way?

I want to correct what the Member said. It is not that I have changed my mind. I have come to a place where, if you can get more political backing on an element of an amendment —.

It is a compromise, rather than my changing my mind.

836 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