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 5615519

Read the official Assembly record

Text

No, I will not give way at the moment. I will reiterate the point. In the case in England, two schoolgirls were held down and repeatedly raped. That was videoed and shared on social media, The girls were called "slags", and one of the girls said that she wanted to end her life. One of the people convicted of that was convicted of aiding and abetting rape. It is a fact that, if the amendment that is proposed by the Alliance Party and signed by Sinn Féin and the SDLP were to pass, the suspect in circumstances such as those could not even be arrested. That is simply wrong. The victim would have no choice in that. That is not right. That is not the society that we believe in. That is not a society in which you can say, "I value women and girls; what you do is wrong". You could not even take the DNA of the aider and abetter of a gang rape who might commit further offences: their DNA would never be in the system. It is crazy stuff: because you could not prove or disprove the offence, you would not be able to deal with safeguarding issues when it came to vetting. The person might say, "It wasn't me; I didn't do it", but the police would not be able to prove or disprove that. It is not about a sandpapering of the amendment; it is fundamentally flawed. When I give Members practical examples, they just look me vacantly and say, "Oh, but the UN said —". Well, the UN can get in a plane and fly to Hampshire. It can tell the victim, "Sorry you're not getting justice". It is not acceptable.

I am pointing the finger at that point

Let me sum up the case, which is overwhelming. This is a bad law. It was proposed in the wrong way, through an amateurish amendment written on the back of a fag paper, and it drives a coach and horses through the fundamental premise of a victim-led

justice system. It is an amendment that would completely obliterate the rights of victims, under which, even by its supporters' own statements, those who were victims of the most heinous crimes would not have a choice as to whether the perpetrator could be arrested, charged or brought to justice. It was assumed that the moral high ground occupied by Members to my left was somehow superior to the position of the victim who had been violated —

— that they knew better and that the perpetrator's rights trumped the victim's rights.

I established, crucially, that there were two limbs to amendment No 82, that, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, murder and rape were not included in the exceptions for 10- and 11-year-olds and that the police could not even arrest a 10- or 11-year-old who committed murder. In an exact replication of the case of Jamie Bulger, who was abducted, tortured and murdered, there could be no criminal justice outcome.

I am not going to give way to Mr O'Toole. None: not an arrest, not a DNA sample. You would just say to the parents of the dead baby, "Sorry: nothing we can do here. We will ask social services to have a chat with the children. Get the beanbag out and have a sit down, because the United Nation says, 'It's not really a crime'". That is not going to happen under my watch; I can tell you that. When it comes to 12- and 13-year-olds, we established clearly and incontrovertibly, despite, again, the shaking of the head, the protestations and the jumping up and down, saying, "On a point of order, Mr Speaker" to throw Mr Burrows off his stride

that inciting murder was not included; conspiracy to murder was not included; aiding and abetting murder was not included; but, somehow, attempted murder was included. Offer me a rationale.

I am afraid that I said that Members need to take stock and that, when they are seeking to change fundamental aspects of law, they should exercise a modicum of care and at least do it through a youth justice Bill, for goodness' sake, and not just scribble something on the back of a fag paper and sneak it through for legislation that —.

720 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:58 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