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 5615286
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The powers of the police would not be criminal powers. Under police child protection laws, the police would be able to detain the child for up to 72 hours and put them in a place of safety, but the law would not allow for a criminal investigation. The police would not be able to take samples. I agree with Mrs Long. Had those children been nine years of age, the police could not have interviewed them or taken samples. We have a system in which 10 is the minimum floor, and there is no good reason to change it. I am not proposing to change it to nine, eight, seven or six. I am not proposing to change it at all. Miss McAllister was wrong when she said that samples could be taken from the victim. Before I explain why she was wrong, I ask this: what sort of society says to the victim, "We can take an invasive" — I will say it — "vaginal swab from a victim, but we can't take a penile swab from a suspect"? What sort of law is that to pass in this place? It is disgusting that a girl has to wear trousers so that she cannot be upskirted. She said that the victim can give evidence, but the sample needs to be compared. The semen is needed from the suspect in order to compare it with the semen from the victim's vagina. That is the real world. She does not live in it. She is telling me about investigations and victims, but the victim would not be a victim, because there would not even be a crime. Evidence would not be able to be gathered from the suspect. I look at the SDLP. I have the highest respect for the SDLP.
I do. I have worked with the SDLP for many years in different guises. If you really were to read into this in depth, you would not go along with the amendments. If you had a constituent telling you, "I want justice. I have been subject to serious and repeat violations", you would not go along with saying, "I am sorry, but we passed a law that states that, no matter how serious an impact it had on you, how grave it was or how much it violated you, we have taken away your right. You do not have a voice. Your voice is irrelevant, because we are thinking of the child, and if the same suspect went out to do that to a different constituent, we would say the same thing". I will use every power in my being to stop women and girls being abused with impunity in this society. I make no apology for that.
I will give way.
462 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: 0.17 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.50 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.50 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.