Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 15 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

15 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5614707

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for that clarification. With that compromise and, let's face it, a political negotiation, science and evidence have gone out the window. What you have done is that you have tried to get to a common denominator for which you can get the biggest support in the House. We are talking about law and order and the age of criminal responsibility. We are talking about victims. We are talking about children. We are talking about crimes. That is really important, as is the debate. One thing is for sure: whatever happens tonight, it has been useful to have the debate. However, if it ends in changing the law on this issue, I fear for where we will end up and where our young people will end up. Sian's amendment No 79 proposes to make the age of criminal responsibility 14. However, she caveats that by including:

"A child aged 10 or over may be charged with murder, manslaughter, rape or assault by penetration".

A cross-party amendment — amendment No 82 — proposes to change the age of criminal responsibility to 12, but it is flipped over, in that no 12- or 13-year-old:

"can be guilty of an offence other than an offence listed in paragraph (3)."

Paragraph 3 mentions murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. One offence that is missing from her lead amendment — amendment No 79 — is attempted murder. Where is the science or evidence around the lists of very serious crimes that could be committed? Sian talked about science and brain development. I get that. I know that we all develop at different stages — I do not know what I am going to be when I grow up. In all seriousness, if it is about scientific research and evidence around brain development, how could anybody aged 10 be found guilty of murder, manslaughter, rape, assault by penetration or attempted murder? In many ways, if you put so much store on the developmental attitudes of young people, it defeats your own argument, and I really worry about that. I also worry that we are complicating what is already a very complicated system. We have a criminal justice system that includes the Youth Justice Agency, youth courts, criminal justice and so on — we know that going into a court is scary for an adult; I have been there — but we complicate it even further when we add caveats for serious crimes for which a 10-year-old, or a 12- or 13-year-old, can be convicted, namely murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or assault by penetration. That will have a grave impact on all the law enforcement agencies, including the PSNI.

Let us look at some issues that we have been dealing with over recent years and at what young people have been doing. I have no doubt that, when it comes to young people's behaviour, violence is a big thing; violence against other children is a big thing. As they get older and come into puberty, sexual activity and, I am afraid, sexual crime come into play.

If a child cannot be found guilty of a sexual crime, does that mean that it is sexual activity because it cannot be a crime if the person perpetrating it cannot commit the crime, cannot be the perpetrator of crime or cannot be guilty of crime? Are we saying that sexual crime for a 12- or 13-year-old, or even, in the first amendment, for a 10- or 11-year-old, is not crime? That is what we are talking about. So what does it become, and how do we get outcomes and justice in that scenario? How do we get a decent outcome for the victim and a decent outcome for the perpetrator? Justice is not just about throwing somebody in prison or punishing people. As a libertarian, I believe that justice works both ways: you get rewarded for doing something good but punished for doing something bad. I really worry, therefore, about the list and the road on which we are travelling. At the minute, the status quo is 10 years old. We all know that. The criminal justice system, the police, the PPS and the courts know that, but how do we go about doing lists? What do we leave off and what do we include? What are the lists for? What are they trying to achieve? Is it about recognising serious harm? Sian alluded to it being about public confidence, and I understand that, because she has been honest, and I thank her for that. If it is about public confidence, however, we have a big issue with everything to do with the criminal justice system, because a lot of people do not have confidence in the justice system, and that is regrettable. Going down this road will add to that lack of confidence. Is it about recognising serious harm? If it is, what about the threat to kill? Is it about managing risk? How is listing only five managing risk for the victim of an activity or for the perpetrator because we are not yet sure whether it is a crime? Will it address public concerns in exceptional cases? The proposer of the amendments and the mover of the debate has said that the numbers are limited. They are minute in the wider scheme of things, so why are we going down the road of lists? That is a serious problem because there is a fundamental issue in the courts system, which has been highlighted to me. First, let me address some of the serious issues that should be on that list. Conspiring or soliciting to commit murder is not on the list. Threats to kill is not on the list. Shooting or attempting to shoot or wounding with intent to commit GBH are not on the list. Inflicting bodily injury with or without a weapon is not on the list, nor is attempting to choke in order to commit an indictable offence. We have been through that before in the Chamber regarding non-fatal strangulation. What message are we now going to send to young people in saying that, if you do that activity at 12, 13 or 14 years old, you are not committing an offence?

Yes, I will.

I thank the Member for his intervention. That is why I am really worried about starting a list system with a list of only five offences, as serious as they are. A child under the age of 16 would not be able to be found guilty of an offence of cruelty to someone under the age of 16. Neither burglary nor aggravated burglary is on the list. Destroying or damaging property is not on the list. What have we lived through in the past week? When it comes to indecent photographs of children, we have gone through the matters of upskirting and downblousing in the House. The Minister pushed that stuff through, and very welcome it was. We supported her with all that, but what we are now saying to a child is this: if you commit that activity, you cannot be found guilty of an offence.

I thank the Member for her intervention. If it is about prevention, why are we not doing it better already? Why have you turned this around so that it is the victim of the activity who needs to do something in order to stop it? That is wrong-headed and not where we should be. Saying, "Worried about upskirting? Just wear trousers" is a bad place in which to be, and we should not go there. We should afford our schoolchildren the safety to wear a skirt if they feel like it, without their fearing being upskirted in any way, shape or fashion. What we are saying, however, is that, under the amendment, a 13- or 14-year-old who engages in that activity will not be found guilty of an offence. That would do violence to all the work that we have been doing over the past number of years. That raises a fundamental issue with our court system. I do not want to see any young person have to go to court for any crime that they have committed, but one of the facets of justice is, and has to be, accountability. Professor Kevin Brown wrote to me and has published a platform piece in 'Irish Legal News'. I state categorically that Professor Brown thinks that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised. He is, however, really worried about the list system and the complication that it would bring, especially for sexual offences. I will read an extract from his platform piece, because I agree exactly with what he wrote:

"The list may also affect how cases are resolved in practice."

That is really important. We have all got to the point of thinking that something should change, but no Member who is here tonight has told me what needs to be put in place. We have talked about a framework, which the Minister mentioned. The Member who proposed the amendment talked about a framework being in place, but no one has yet given us the detail of what it would look like and what outcomes it would achieve.

I thank the Minister for her intervention. None of that is in the text of any of the amendments, however.

We would need assurance, and the Minister would need to give assurance to everyone out there —.

1,582 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:56 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