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 5615554

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments may be procedurally competent, but they can still be dangerous law. It is the duty of someone standing in the Chamber as a legislator to point that out. Diane Abbott, I think, said that the job that we do — I am privileged to do it — is:

"clean, indoor work, no heavy lifting."

Do you know what I have noticed while sitting here today with people who are on good wages and live in a cloistered environment? They want there to be accountability for something that was said that was slightly unsettling, yet they would say to the victim of a serious crime, "Sorry, your feelings don't count". When the feelings of well-paid legislators who live in leafy areas of Northern Ireland are cared about more than those of children and women who have been upskirted, downbloused, sexually assaulted or sexually humiliated, you realise that this place has lost its moral compass. What is proposed today is shameful: to legalise the most serious crimes and to make law without doing decent due diligence. They have to have it pointed out to them that one type of incomplete offence — attempted murder — was included, while another — conspiracy to commit murder — was not, and then they say, "Well, we can just finesse the amendment at Further Consideration Stage". Finesse it? It is fundamentally flawed. It needs to be ripped up, thrown out and looked at again. I have dealt with the fact that the amendment is ill advised and based on the world as we want to see it, not the world as it is. I am afraid that it is based on a world in which we read textbooks and listen to academics who have degrees in criminology but no common sense. May those who labour about the —.

Yes. I have a degree in law and politics, a master's degree in international criminal justice and a master's degree in human rights law.

For the absence of doubt —

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am modest about my credentials, which

I am a man of modesty. The Minister asked me a straight question, and she got a straight answer.

I came into politics promising to be straight-talking. They are a BA (Hons), an MSc and an LLM with distinction, but we will move on from that. An aspect of my thesis was on the criminal responsibility of young people, but I will leave that aside for one second. It certainly prepared me for coming in here and listening to the highly experienced legislators who want to pass a law but do not know what it means. Anyway, thank goodness that there are emergency brakes that we can pull in extremis. I then ran through the cold, hard facts that cut through nostalgia like a hot knife through butter. All the nice words

yet the victims —. There was an admission that the case of Jamie Bulger could not be investigated. There was an admission that serious offences would simply be brushed away. There were desperate attempts to say that the police could detain a nine-year-old. Yes, they could, but they could not criminally investigate them. People asked us to justify why we are not changing the law from the age of 10 to 9, even though they are the ones changing in the law, and it is for them to justify it. They fundamentally failed to do so, and their case collapsed. As it did, they shook their heads, chuntered and got annoyed.

I will not give way any more. I ran through examples in our schools of teachers being upskirted, downbloused, sexually assaulted and receiving rape threats, and I asked whether it was fair that the victim did not get a choice in whether prosecution could be taken, and I got no answer. I consistently asked whether the victim — I know that Members do not want to hear this — got a choice. Does the victim get a say? Does the victim even get consulted? The answer is no. The state will tell you whether you are entitled to justice, not the young girl who has been assaulted, not the girl who has been cyberflashed or bullied, not the teacher who has been sexually assaulted, not the family of someone who has been run over by an e-scooter and not the residents of Alexander House, when petrol bombs rained down on them. They do not get a say. We are delegating that say to the United Nations because that really works for our victims. I demonstrated that the investigative capability of the police relies on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Miss McAllister jumped up and said, "Oh no, you can still take samples from the victim". You can take samples from the victim. You can swab the victim for the semen of a suspect, for the blood, for the cuts —.

I have not come to that yet, Miss McAllister, but the suspect cannot have the samples taken unless they consent.

Says the law. There is a lottery because your parents have to consent for you. So, the good parent who says to their child, wee Jonny, "Let the police take a sample that will prove that you raped someone or that you were involved in the aiding and abetting of rape or that you were involved in a joyriding accident that has wiped out a family. Give your sample". Wee Jonny, who is a naive fella, gives his sample, but the parents who are not as responsible say, "Say nothing, son", and the police cannot do a thing. We would reinforce not doing the right thing. Do we live in a society where a family could be wiped out by a joyrider who is a day short of 14, and the police have to ask nicely for the forensics. They have to say, "Please would you give me your forensics?", "No, I will not." "Oh, thank you very much. The United Nations sends its regards". What sort of law are you trying to pass? What carnage would there be in your constituencies? I can see that the penny has dropped with some of you. You are laughing.

We established beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no ability for the police to establish to any standard who did what. The fundamental premise is to establish the facts. The best that we can hope for is that social services might find out. Really? Will social services investigate the crime, take the samples, get them off to the forensic lab and put the bail conditions on? Those are real-life examples that collide with an ideology that is dangerously foolish. It is informed by people who do not live in the real world in which victims operate, the world that I have seen and the world that many people in this place clearly cannot comprehend.

I ask this to anyone who was going to vote for those amendments tonight: could you genuinely look your constituents in the eye? The Member is nodding her head as if to say that she could look them in the eye and say, "It's right that you, as the victim of a serious sexual assault, will not have a say in bringing the perpetrator to justice". Do you feel comfortable with that?

I always give way to the Justice Minister.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding. In that circumstance, the decision is based on the evidence of whether the case has been made out, not on whether the victim has any right to have a case investigated. Is the Minister of Justice saying that, in the Department that she oversees, there are members of the PPS who, where there is sufficient evidence of incitement to commit rape, tell a victim, "Sorry. We've got the evidence, but we're not prosecuting"? Is that what you are saying, Minister? If that is what you are saying, there needs to be a public inquiry into your Department. Every time that I —.

I always give way to the Minister.

I have not misrepresented any points. Scrutinise Hansard, investigate and, if I have, let me be brought to justice — something that will be denied to victims of serious crime.

I am talking about an investigation by the Speaker's Office. Despite the shaking of the head, the distractions, the denials, the jumping up and down, the points of order, the interventions and all the desperate tactics, we have established that the police would not be able to investigate any crime — even serious crimes — because of the amendments. The victim would have no choice. I will say that one more time to the good SDLP Members: the victim would not have a choice. It could be a case of sexual assault, of someone losing a limb, of grievous bodily harm, of a migrant’s house being burnt down, of a Glider being destroyed or of a petrol bomb leaving a police officer in intensive care: if the suspect is a day under the age of 14, they cannot even be investigated. I do not think that Members realised that that is what they were about to pass. The suspect would only be asked to give samples. The victim would be told, "It's none of your concern. The United Nations say no". Imagine if your life had been fundamentally affected — if you had to live with first-degree burns or third-degree burns for the rest of your life, or if you had become paraplegic and your family has to look after you — the suspect cannot even be investigated, and you have no voice or say in the matter. No matter how passionately you say, "I want the facts. I mightn't even want them to go to prison for a long time, but I want a court to say that they committed a crime against me, or against my mum or my dad or my daughter", the amendments would mean that that would not happen. Members shake their heads, but that is exactly what they were going to pass. Thank goodness for the emergency brakes that were negotiated in 1998 because, without them, we were going to disrupt and damage people in this society.

1,712 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