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 5614850

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. Manslaughter is on the list. He illustrates a valid point, however. If someone is on trial for murder but pleads guilty to manslaughter — it is on the list — you can see how that trickles down and how a system that lists exclusive offences could be really detrimental to that young person in court. There are real issues that have not yet been addressed or even thought out, unfortunately. I will address the issue of the coercion of young people by criminal gangs. The issue that needs to be discussed is that it is not good enough to say that young people are already being coerced by criminal gangs. Of course they are, but there is a better chance of a 10-year-old being indoors at night than a 14-year-old. Young people who are 12, 13 and 14 years old are much more mobile and harder to keep in the house. They will be out and about and can go further distances than a 10-year-old can. There is a real difference. The four years between the ages of 10 and 14 years old is a massive period in a child's life, so it is really important that we get this right. What I mean when I talk about mobility is that there is a greater risk of a vulnerable 13-year-old or 14-year-old being in the grasp of a criminal gang than there is of most 10-year-olds being in the same situation. That is why we are protecting people by seeking to keep the criminal age of responsibility at 10.

You are creating a cliff edge at an age of greater mobility. That means that, if you are a criminal gang lord — I do not know what you call them nowadays — the head honcho of a criminal gang or even a terrorist outfit, you will look at your range of young people whom you can exploit, and you will group together all your 12-year-olds and all your 13-year-olds, and you will have a greater number of them than 10-year-olds. You will send those people out as drug mules, to engage in drug dealing and to move arms and explosives from house to house. Those things, if the young people are captured by the police, will not be crimes.

First of all, on secure care, there is not much secure about it, I am afraid. There are massive issues with our care system. That is not a slight on anyone who works in that difficult field. We know what that means for the people who are employed there. However, we also know what it means for the children who are in care. They are the most exploited. They disappear for days on end. The care staff do not know where they are. They do not know where they have been. They do not know what they have been doing, and there is little that they can do about it. That is why this matter is so important. The criminal gangs do not care about those young people, but you are incentivising those crime gangs to use children in that age range to fund and fuel their criminal activities. You are creating an incentive to use that age group. That is what you are doing.

I will.

Yes.

Yes.

I thank the Member for that. I will give way in a wee minute, Minister. I will address that. Changing the age of criminal responsibility will not do one thing for the child caught up in those drug gangs. It will not do one thing for the children caught up in terrorist outfits. It will not do one thing for those, whereas, if they can be captured, if they can be found committing an offence, there is a chance that we can rescue those children, stop the reoffending and get them away from the grip of the criminal gangs. We will not send those young people to prison. We will use diversionary tactics; we will use restorative justice; and we will ensure that those people are protected.

Yes, I will give way, and then I will give way to the Minister.

We are not going to give children life sentences. However, your amendment will convict children of murder; attempted murder; manslaughter; rape; or assault by penetration. In that regard, there is no difference between your position and mine. You will still convict young people — children — of those offences, so how do you explain that? How does the Member opposite explain why she is justifying finding a 12- or 13-year-old guilty of murder, when they might have been coerced; attempted murder, when they might have been coerced; manslaughter, when they might have been coerced; rape, when they might have been coerced; and assault by penetration, when they might have been coerced? How does the Member opposite square that circle?

I can give way to the Members opposite if they wish, but I also promised to give way to the Minister, and I will come to her now.

843 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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