Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5615141
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have established that, between the ages of 10 and 11, there is complete immunity, and then, between the ages of 12 and 13, there is immunity for all offences bar five that effectively relate to murder, rape, attempted murder and attempted rape. It is all done by an amendment: a radical rewriting of our criminal justice law in Northern Ireland not with extensive research but with a Back-Bench amendment. Fundamentally, the failure of those who have tabled and supported the amendment is that they see the world as they want to see it and not the world as, I am afraid, it is. I have seen that world, in which a child was held in a room and gang-raped by other teenagers. It is horrible, and the things that you see you cannot unsee. I will never tell a victim of crime that she has no choice about whether a case is brought. I asked the question, and it was dodged. I was given examples of where, sometimes, victims do not want to take a case to court, but if a victim has been seriously assaulted and had their house burnt down or if a family has been wiped out by joyriders who caused death by dangerous driving, they do not even get the option of whether the persecutor can be taken to court.
Absolutely. I will address that point specifically in one moment. Let me give Members some cold, hard facts and examples of real offending that would not be a crime, that could not be investigated by the police and that would result in the victim not having any say in whether a criminal case was taken. I will explain some of them. In a case of aiding and abetting rape by someone who was a day short of 14 years of age — I will give not a theoretical example but an example of something that happened in England last year — someone was prosecuted just last month and convicted. We are in some imaginary world where, if a group of people are responsible for a heinous crime, we are saying that the person who is guilty of attempted murder should face the full rigours of the law and go to prison for life, yet someone who aided and abetted or conspired to commit that murder and is equally culpable under our existing law cannot even be arrested. How would the police investigate a conspiracy if all those who conspired had not committed an offence, only the person who committed the substantive offence? They could not seize their phones. They could not seize their clothes. The conspirators could not be interrogated in an interview. That simply does not make sense. There is no logical explanation for why attempted murder could be prosecuted but not conspiracy to murder. It is stuff for the birds, but this is legislation. The answer that has been given is that five offences were picked to avoid public outrage. Seeking to avoid public outrage is exactly not the way to make law. I have listened to the testimony of schoolgirls and teachers. The following things would not be against the law in Northern Ireland for anyone who was one day shy of their fourteenth birthday, yet this is what parties are passing a law about tonight
Upskirting —
If I may be heard.
Upskirting would not be a crime. What signal would that send to a society that has a problem with femicide and extreme misogyny? There are young men who watch extreme porn and are influenced by online bigots and misogynists who think that it is OK to upskirt a schoolteacher.
I will give way to Mr O'Toole.
617 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: 0.11 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.70).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.70 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.25 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.75 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.24 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.