Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5600977
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank my colleague Paul Frew for his leadership on the consideration of the Justice Bill. I thank my colleagues Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston for their work on the Justice Committee, as well as other Justice Committee members and the Minister, as we work through such hugely significant and complex legislation. I support the position that Paul Frew put forward — at length, some might say — and my DUP colleagues. I will not rehearse the details that have already been well covered. I will speak on our amendment Nos 88 and 89 specifically, to which I was pleased to put my name. Those amendments are on:
"Domestic abuse involving threats or harm to animals".
They would extend the domestic abuse protections to Northern Ireland to explicitly cover threats or harm to animals. I have always been an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, and I worked in that area before becoming an MLA. I am acutely aware of the sheer evil that exists in plain sight at every level and position in our community.
Those who seek to degrade and abuse their victims through coercive control use every tool in their box to do so. They exert control over finances and they use children as a weapon. It is heartbreaking that innocent children are used in that way. My colleague Paul Frew has tabled an amendment to address children's being used as an aggravator.
Abusers also use animals as weapons. Our amendments recognise that behaviour as a form of domestic abuse and allow the courts to protect animals through existing civil protection orders. There is an established correlation between those who commit animal abuse and those who are domestic abusers. That correlation is regularly cited in the risk assessments that are used by support organisations such as Women's Aid. When victims are terrified that their abuser will threaten to harm their animal if they do not comply, it is devastating and frustrating for them to feel that they do not have the power to take any further action in that context. The amendments will have a significant and practical effect by formally recognising how animals are used for coercive control and by strengthening the legal protections. Our amendments explicitly define the harm of, threats to and interference with animals as a form of domestic abuse. They extend non-molestation and occupation orders for courts to prohibit abusers from harming, threatening or interfering with animals, and to consider the welfare of the animals. If the amendments are acted on, I believe that they will make a significant difference. They will prevent animal harm and empower abuse victims to stand up with the force of the law against the perpetrator. As I said previously, animal abuse is a proven indicator of future, more violent crimes. Prosecuting those offences will catch perpetrators earlier in the triangle of violence. I consider the amendments to be similar in type to the relatively new offence of non-fatal strangulation, which was previously introduced. That offence has seen significant application and significant work from the police. I believe that catching that early indicator before it results in death has saved many lives. I believe that amendment Nos 88 and 89 will be of a similar theme, and I hope that Members will be able to support them.
550 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.97).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.77 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.