Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 8 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

8 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5601124

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. Wittingly or unwittingly, he is lumping two issues together. I have no problem with article 64B sub-paragraph (1)(b), about a person who "coerces" —. I am not opposed to it being an offence to force people to display sexual images. That is a horrible practice, and I am fine with supporting ending it. The problem is with article 64B(1)(a):

"publishes or displays, or causes or allows to be published or displayed, including digitally, an advertisement whose purpose is to promote, facilitate or offer sexual services provided by another person".

That is incredibly broad and does not protect women who do that. I do not claim to speak for all, or any, women, but women do say that they engage in sex work by their own choice, regardless of whether I or anybody else likes it, morally speaking or otherwise. My problem is the lumping together of those two things.

I will give way briefly, because I have been generous with my time.

I thank the Member for that. However, I repeat: it is too broad and criminalises people even when they are engaged in services through choice. They are adults who know exactly what they are doing. They are intelligent beings. I therefore have a concern about lumping everything into that amendment. I will make some progress, Members will be glad to know. I am concerned about sweeping up and criminalising the tools that sex workers rely on to stay safe, to screen clients, to work indoors and to stay off the streets. We were warned a decade ago that criminalising the trade would drive it underground and endanger the most vulnerable, and that was correct. We will therefore not support amendment No 78, because we do not support the criminalisation of sex work and do not want to put people at risk of further exploitation. I have no problem supporting amendment Nos 88 and 89 on domestic abuse and harm to animals. In fact, I will be glad to support them. It was quite concerning and upsetting to listen to the Members opposite talk about such abuse. The fact that an abuser may use threats and violence against a victim's pet as a deliberate weapon and as a way to trap them in an abusive home, because they will not leave the animal behind to get hurt, is quite upsetting. As someone who has a dog, I concur that pets are absolutely part of the family. Recognising that in our domestic abuse protections, as amendment Nos 88 and 89 do, is a welcome and evidence-based step that will help to keep victims and their family safe. In conclusion, we will support the amendments that protect people by repealing the criminalisation of poverty and ending the relic of blasphemy and those that strengthen the protections for people facing domestic abuse. We will do our best to oppose other amendments that simply widen the net of criminal law and hand more power to the state without any evidence or rationale, but I appreciate that it may just be me who does so.

518 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