Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 15 June 2026.

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 5615169

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It seems that, when reality collides with theory, those on the opposite side of the House want to shout me down. Let me finish the examples that I was giving. Upskirting would not be a crime if the suspect was one day below 14, and, if the teacher rang the police because the suspect denied it and that person had an image on their phone that they wanted to circulate, the police could not even seize the phone to prove or disprove the offence. What does that say to women in our society? What way is that to treat women in our society? Ms Sheerin said, "Well, they can wear trousers". Hang on a second: women should not have to wear trousers to avoid being upskirted in our schools. I supported pupils' right to wear trousers if they wish, but I am —

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will run through some other offences. Downblousing would not be a crime, and the victim could not get any justice, nor would cyberflashing, deepfake porn or threats of rape. There are cases in Northern Ireland where children and teachers have been threatened with rape. If they rang the police, the police would say that no crime was committed. That is a horrendous signal at the wrong time. It is also the case with sexual humiliation and harassment. This is not progressive; it is deeply irresponsible. I asked the Justice Minister this: was the amendment screened in the context of violence against women and girls and against our Executive-wide strategy to combat violence against women and girls? The answer was no: we had not even assessed that. That was deeply irresponsible. Let me turn to the five offences that are listed. The fact that five offences and five offences only were listed is an example of the irrationality of the amendment. There is a glaring contradiction. At the first point, we say that young people are not able to understand right from wrong. We then say that we are prepared to put a young person on trial for their liberty for life in the most complex, high-stress Crown Court environment: a murder trial. We say that they do not understand a lesser charge but are able to navigate a Crown Court case.

The other contradiction is that you can be, as I said, charged with murder or attempted murder but not conspiracy to murder. You can be charged with attempted murder but not GBH with intent. Even if someone showed understanding of what they did, such as the premeditated petrol bombing of a migrant's house — they wore a balaclava, they went home after, washed and got changed, and they had alibis all lined up, which would show premeditation, an understanding of criminal law and that they knew that what they were doing was wrong — they could not face justice. However, somebody who punches another person once and they fall and hit their head off the kerb could face life imprisonment. That is where arbitrary offences simply do not make sense. I will put you through that again. Someone who has planned a murder over months and months would be deemed not to understand the offence, but someone who has struck another person once in an emotional bad temper and that person then hit their head off a kerb could be convicted for life. That is not fair. It is not justice. The amendment is not fit for purpose.

Legal flexibility would completely disappear from our criminal justice system. We have one of the best youth diversion systems in Europe. We have a compassionate and human rights-compliant police service. It has been said to me that the age of criminal responsibility in some despotic countries is higher than it is in Northern Ireland, as if that were a sign that we have a human rights problem. I ask you this: would you rather your son or daughter were arrested in Northern Ireland, where the criminal age of responsibility is 10, or in a despotic country like Russia, where there is a higher age of criminal responsibility? The age is not the issue; it is the fact that you have a police service that is human rights-compliant, proportionate and takes a compassionate view of young people. The PPS is extremely flexible. It charges only as a last resort. However, the system allows us not just to deal with serious cases but to gather evidence. The nuance would completely disappear —.

748 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