Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 15 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

15 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5614913

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I must confess, having been so used to the sound of Mr Frew's voice for the last while, it is a bit of a surprise that his speech has ended so suddenly.

I will be somewhat briefer on amendment No 82 than offers have been thus far. There is no explicit or implicit criticism of others for what they have said, because it has been a really useful debate. Clearly, it is a subject that is hugely important. There is much academic literature and international experience to draw on, and the Justice Committee has taken significant amounts of evidence on it. It goes without saying that my colleague Patsy McGlone has been stalwart in dealing with the Bill. One or two of us are speaking in order to share the burden, as other parties are doing, in relation to amendments. We support amendment No 82, which is why we have co-signed it. It is important to start from the position of acknowledging what the criminal justice system is designed to do. It needs to meet the needs of a number of groups: victims of crime, obviously; those who commit or are accused of committing crimes; and society as a whole, meaning the wider needs of people who want to live in a safe society where justice is done and seen to be done. There is an international debate about the appropriate minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is important to say, first, that Northern Ireland is an outlier, as are other jurisdictions in the UK whose minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10. As Sian Mulholland said, the average age is, in fact, 14 in states where a minimum age of criminal responsibility is defined. The overwhelming majority of international best practice, the academic literature and studies on the subject are clear that the best way to secure the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people in the groups that I mentioned — victims, perpetrators or alleged perpetrators and society writ large — is for the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be higher than 10. Amendment No 79 sets it down that the minimum age should be 14, with specific exceptions. Mr Frew has explained, drawing on comments by Professor Kevin Brown of Queen's University, why he sees flaws in the list of exceptions, but it is important to say that Professor Brown, along with a swathe of other academic criminologists and people who study the criminal justice system and youth services — most of them, in fact — is clear that the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland should go up and should have gone up years ago. Indeed, he described the status quo as "hard to defend" — no pun intended. The question about listing the exceptions is really a question of implementation and of how those exceptions interact with other potential pathways in the criminal justice system — Mr Frew talked about potential lesser pleas in the judicial system — or with other statutory services that engage with young people who are being investigated or held to account for the crimes that are listed in amendment No 82 as exceptions. Fundamentally, however, those are questions of implementation. That is not to diminish or dismiss them, but they are about how the exceptions are implemented. It is also true, as Emma Sheerin pointed out, that the exceptions exist in part to address broader public concern or a public perception that people would not want to have a blanket change to the minimum age of criminal responsibility without any exception for the most serious crimes. Of course, many people in academia would simply say, "No, actually, if you are to be clear and consistent, you should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility without exceptions", but I would say this: we are politicians, and the point about being politicians is that we work to achieve progressive change and improve the lives of our citizens by bringing as many people along as we can. Including the exceptions is an attempt to do that. It is a serious attempt to make clear to the public —.

I will give way in one second. It is a serious attempt to make clear to the public that the direction of travel is to raise the age of criminal responsibility while addressing any perceptions that doing so will simply lead to an added risk of people's guilt — they would be found guilty, because they would be capable of being charged and found guilty of those offences — being mitigated. It is reasonable for legislators to want to do that when they are bringing forward change that is relatively novel. I give way to Mr Burrows.

First, I did not say "people in this Chamber"; I said "the public" writ large. You are picking a series of, from your perspective, contradictions and saying, "Why this but not that?". The straw man is that all those people aged 11, 12 and 13 would simply be left to crack on and that there would be no intervention or management of them. That is just not true. There is no point in shuffling your papers theatrically and smirking, Mr Burrows. As has been laid out, if a young person were being investigated for those things, the idea that they would simply be left alone and that statutory services would not be closely engaged with them is fanciful. It is irresponsible to suggest that that would be so. This is the really important point: I presume, through the Chair, that you will acknowledge that, once young people enter the criminal justice system, all the evidence, including the statistics, shows that they are much more likely to reoffend. Is that not true?

Mr Burrows, who is the scion of everything about the criminal justice system, is refusing to engage in this one question: does entering the criminal justice system mean that people are more likely to reoffend? Am I right or wrong?

I will give way if he answers my question.

No, no.

There we have it: Mr Burrows is impugning the motives and the intelligence of people who happen to disagree with his expertise. It is completely reasonable for him to take a different position, but the proposition that he just posited to me is a false one. I do not know whether he talked about a person who was guilty of or was being investigated for those offences. That might be more true, or exactly true, were that to be a 25-year-old, a 35-year old or a 45-year-old. We are talking about children. The point is that, when we are talking about children at age 11, 12 or 13 —.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me be clear about what has just happened. It is an utter farce and a travesty of democracy. Once again, these institutions are being dragged into disrepute by parties that cannot accept democracy and the fact that we are allowed to debate issues here. I have just been engaging in good faith with Mr Burrows about the pros and cons of amendment No 82. I listened to his arguments, and I put my arguments back to him. I was then interrupted by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be told that Mr Burrows and his colleagues have done some deal with the DUP. Perhaps he has done a deal with his colleagues — those who are or are not supporting him in his Assembly group — to block the will of the Assembly to vote on that amendment. To be clear, amendment No 82 does not contain anything that relates to the vital interests of one community or another. I am not aware that it mentions unionists, nationalists or core constitutional issues at all. It does not threaten core issues of identity.

I will give way in a second to Mr Carroll. It does not cut across anyone's identity or constitutional perspective whatsoever, which is the core reason that the petition of concern was created for these institutions in the first place. The amendment increases the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is something that most criminologists think is sensible. The amendment includes some exceptions, and people are taking issue with some of the practicalities of it. All of that is almost irrelevant now, however, because we are not even going to be able to debate it. Why?

I will give way in one second to the Justice Minister. It is because Mr Burrows and his party have joined the DUP in abusing the petition of concern. Let me say this: earlier on today —.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to Mr Carroll and the Minister of Justice in a second, because I am sure that they will have fairly legitimate and robust opinions to make about the announcement as well. What has happened today is an absolute disgrace, and I make this point to unionist Members across the Chamber. This is not a constitutional issue at all, but it is, I am afraid, the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP that have now blocked the amendments. Earlier on, successive Members opposite got up and ranted and raved about Fine Gael, a party south of the border, for daring to speak about the constitutional future of this island. Have some self-awareness, lads. You continue to plunge this place into dysfunction. You continue to block the ability of people here to make change. The amendments have nothing to do with the constitution or with identity, yet you are using the petition of concern — abusing it — in order —.

When? When has the SDLP —?

Utterly ridiculous.

In one second, Mr Carroll. Utterly ridiculous. I will give way now.

I will say this, however: think about the functioning of this institution.

That is something that you have talked about consistently.

I agree with that. To be clear, it is legitimate for the Members opposite to disagree with raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What it is not legitimate for them to do is to use a mechanism that was designed to protect core issues for designated communities in order simply to block legislation. Mr Burrows in particular has come into the Assembly, and I respect his ability to get media attention and all of that, because that is what politicians do, but he was previously laying down the law, calling the odds on absolutely everything and saying how Stormont had to work better. He said that Stormont had to work better in order for Northern Ireland to function, but he then pulls nonsense such as this.

Do not expect people to say, "God, Northern Ireland works great. Stormont works great", when you do stuff like this, Mr Burrows. I am afraid that it is true that people will draw conclusions about the functioning of these institutions and the willingness of unionist politicians to make this place work. I am afraid that that is just true. That is just true.

It is not majoritarianism, as the Minister of Education suggests from a sedentary position.

We have never abused it for anything. That is ridiculous.

1,861 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