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 5615653

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes. I will address that in one second. Let me just go back to the activities of the organisation that is linked to Sinn Féin. While that party was promoting a bill of rights, that organisation was still mutilating children. It was taking them with cudgels up back alleyways and dispensing its own form of justice, I have to say, by shooting children in the knees, robbing banks and preventing people from engaging with the PSNI on allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence. People have come to me and said, "I got permission to report it to you eventually". Who was that permission from? It was from Sinn Féin. I will take no lectures about a bill of rights from a political party

that still says that it was OK to blow people up because it was necessary. I am afraid that your view on justice has contaminated Members on this side, unwittingly, to somehow seek immunity. Perhaps you are familiar with immunity when you seek your on-the-run letters, pardons and all those things. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. Here is the thing: these are important issues. I will address what the Member for Foyle said. She said that I made some very good points but that the petition of concern is the issue. The points that I am making are irrefutable. I will run through all the facts again

because we established that there was legal immunity for murder if you are aged 10 or 11. The parents of Jamie Bulger would not have been able to report the case to the police. The police would not have been able to arrest the suspects or take forensic evidence. We established that the Minister accepted that taking forensic samples was possible only by consent, as though someone would consent to give forensic samples that would implicate them in a rape.

Every time that I state a fact, I am told that it has been made up.

Then, I repeat the facts and wait for someone to correct me.

It is not a matter of political opinion that, under this law, someone could be guilty of aiding and abetting a rape and could not be arrested, investigated or charged. Under this law, in an exact replica of the Jamie Bulger case, the police would not be able to intervene with the suspects. Under this law, they would not be able to seize their clothes and match samples from the crime scene with the offender and the victim. Those are facts, not opinion. It is not opinion that upskirting or downblousing would not be covered by the legislation. It is not opinion that it would impact on the ability of the police to investigate a crime, impose bail conditions, take samples, exonerate someone or prove them guilty. It is not opinion that the amendments do not give the victim a choice: they do not even say that the victim has a right to be heard, let alone the right to make a decision and say, "I want to bring a case against my perpetrator". I have explained jaw-dropping scenarios that run a coach and horses through the idea that a child is not capable of understanding right and wrong. Let me give you a recap. One of the most extreme examples is that a child could be tried and found guilty of murder because they punched someone who fell over and hit their head on a kerb in a one-punch attack, yet, if they planned carefully, over many months, a serious attack on a victim, burned down their home, went back home, cleared the evidence, got alibis and wiped their phone —.

Yes.

In conclusion, it is a dangerous law, badly drafted. It obliterates the rights of the victim and puts on a pedestal the rights of the perpetrator. It sacrifices the rights of the victim on the altar of political correctness and nostalgia and for Members who want to see the world as they wish to see it, not the world as it is. The proposals collapsed spectacularly under any scrutiny whatsoever. Things that they said were opinion have now been accepted as fact. Things that they stated as fact have now been proved to be simply mistruths. Those who sit on that side, shaking their head —.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am drawing to a conclusion.

We are here to speak hard, cold facts, because we are legislators. Let us take, for example, Mr Carroll's amendment, which is perhaps the most dangerous amendment known to any Parliament anywhere in the British Isles — Mrs Long thinks that that is amusing — to actually say that nobody under the age of 16 is capable of committing an offence; and it says "conclusively" that it shall be proved that nobody under the age of 16 shall be capable of committing an offence. I said that that has the effect of legalising rape.

It does, because, if you cannot commit an offence, the offence has not been committed. People can say, "Oh, those are hurty words", but here is the thing: I have been reported to the Speaker; we have had Erskine May; we have had the United Nations. It seems to be that the feelings, sentiment and precise words used by a Member are more capable of being arbitrated and held to account for than horrendous offending by a suspect. Why do we look for that cloistered protection in here, of going to the Speaker about a word that has slightly hurt a Member's feelings?

I will give you standards. I am not answerable to the people in here. I am answerable to the people out there. I do not give a fig.

Let me say this. Let me say this: I do not give a fig, frankly, if nearly everybody in the Chamber cannot stand me. I will still ask questions. Frankly, I do not care that I am not liked by some people. Do you know what my duty is? It is to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland; the people who need us. They will not jump in their nice car to drive home or have a nice pension with a big contribution to it and nice staff. They do not say, "Oh, isn't this a lovely environment to work in? Oh, I get a nice allowance. Oh, look at all these perks".

We have the audacity in this place — this is where this place needs fundamental change to its culture. We have the audacity to —.

I am going to —.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to justify my use of the phrase "legalising rape", because the de facto outworking of Mr Carroll's dangerous amendment and the proposals in Ms Mulholland's amendment No 82 to do with 10- and 11-year-olds is that rape would not be capable of being committed by certain citizens of our country by whom it can be committed now. That is a fact, and it is incontrovertible. I stand by my statement that we would be legalising the aiding and abetting of rape and the incitement of rape, because, were the amendments to go through, it would be taken off the statute book, in which it is currently a crime, and no longer be a crime. That is legalisation. I cannot say it more clearly. I know that the Member is offended by that, but I am more offended at victims not getting justice. In conclusion — I mean it — I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your generosity and patience, because I am passionate about the issue, if I may return to seriousness. It is bad law that is badly drafted. Thankfully, we have an emergency brake. If we did not, we would be looking at potential chaos on our streets. Migrant workers would be attacked in their homes without consequence. We would be looking at a police service that would be made impotent by not being able to investigate or intervene and at a justice system that would put the rights of perpetrators above the rights of victims. I am glad that I spoke the hard truths. If that has offended some sensitivities or has ruled me out of getting a plush job at the United Nations and if I do —

In conclusion, I thank everyone for their forbearance. It has been a passionate debate, and I am glad that, despite the earlier interventions, my voice has been heard. Under my leadership, the Ulster Unionist Party will always stand up for victims, public protection and, yes, a compassionate justice system, but we will never silence victims. We are always on the side of victims.

1,451 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism

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?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.