Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5625185
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The first adult restorative justice strategy here was published in March 2022. The revised restorative justice protocol was published in July 2023. An interim protocol lead was appointed in February 2024. In September 2025, the Committee received an update on restorative justice and the work of the interim protocol lead from the Department's reducing offending division. That was just prior to the publication of the new practice standards and accreditation framework the following month. My remarks on group 7 will focus on amendment No 87, which relates to restorative justice. I must start by taking a moment to acknowledge the significant impact of the work undertaken by Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI) and Alternatives. For almost three decades, those organisations have provided community-based mediation, advice and intervention services, including victim and family support and youth mentoring, to resolve and reduce harm, restore relationships and promote accountability. As a Derry MLA, I am fortunate that the Cityside benefits from Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) Derry. Many community organisations and I rely heavily on its services and its team of trained mediators and practitioners, who actively engage daily not only in the community but with schools, the PSNI and a range of other organisations. I also recognise that many other areas, including other parts of our city, are crying out for similar services to be available locally. Therefore, it is hugely welcome that the amendment would advance and develop the availability of restorative justice practitioners. I acknowledge that, when Community Restorative Justice Ireland and Alternatives spoke at Committee in October, they raised some concerns. One issue that they raised was the relatively low figures of community resolution notices that were being actively passed across to CRJ and Alternatives by the local neighbourhood policing teams. Additionally, there were concerns about the impact of budget constraints on the roll-out of services and ongoing expansion. A multi-agency task and finish group, including departmental representatives, the Courts and Tribunals Service, the Probation Board, PPS and the PSNI, alongside the Department's restorative justice working group, is actively looking at adult restorative justice and diversionary disposals. That is welcome. While it was acknowledged that Ards and North Down and Lisburn and Castlereagh, to be followed by Antrim and Newtownabbey and Mid and East Antrim, were chosen as areas for the adult restorative justice pilot, it was queried why the pilot was not initially focused in areas that have existing restorative justice infrastructure. Additionally, as we know that budgetary pressures limited the roll-out of the enhanced combination order programme for the Probation Board, we retain a degree of concern about the guarantee of future expansion and roll-out of the adult restorative justice pilot into other areas. I place on record the significant benefits of restorative justice, including in respect of accountability, victim satisfaction, reduced reoffending and community cohesion. Restorative justice works for early intervention, fostering dialogue, empathy, emotional healing and accountability. It works for de-escalation, preventing underlying conflicts from developing into more serious criminality. It works for reducing reoffending and promoting long-lasting behavioural change by repairing harm and delivering accountability. We very much welcome the transfer of accreditation and oversight powers from Britain to the local Department. However, I ask that we reflect on commentary from Professor Kieran McEvoy of Queen's University Belfast, who asked why Community Restorative Justice Ireland and Alternatives are having to start from scratch despite having three decades of experience, and how that makes any intellectual, practical or political sense. Perhaps, the Minister could shed some light on her thinking in that regard.
Yes.
588 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: 0.05 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.79 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
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.