Debate contribution: Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 30 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Jon Burrows

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

30 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5653455

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, because our justice system in Northern Ireland is tilted towards the interests of suspects and perpetrators over and above the interests of victims and the general public. I hope that the Bill will go some way to recalibrating and reorienting our justice system back to being what it should always be, which is victim-focused. The balance has got out of kilter, and I will come back to that. It is absolutely right that a Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses is placed on a statutory footing to champion processes, culture and safeguards and to understand the lived experiences of victims. There has been much talk about special measures and changing parts of the legal procedure, and such change is well overdue. There is always a balance to be struck between the rights of an unconvicted person who has been accused of a crime and the rights of the victim, and we need to get that balance right. We should never forget that there have been miscarriages of justice in our country down through the years. It is important that a person who has been accused of a crime — remember that they have to be accused to a reasonable standard of doubt — has protection and that they are able to get full disclosure, where appropriate, and to have the victim's account cross-examined appropriately, because their liberty, reputation and future life are at stake. However, we need to make some changes. I agree that we should support the changes outlined re the cross-examination of victims. It is invasive for someone to be cross-examined by the person who has caused them grave trauma and great hurt — the person who has victimised them. Cross-examination can be done by legal counsel, which is sound. On disclosure, victims of sexual offences should not have dragged into court, as the result of a fishing expedition, tittle-tattle and salaciousness about things from their private life. That is so important. That is a chill factor for people in making and sustaining a complaint. The victim must have a voice to ensure that the disclosure process is properly informed and that irrelevant material is not brought in, while we maintain a suspect's right to get any information that is relevant to finding out the truth. The justice system should support and be empathetic to victims, but it is there to get the truth. We need to caveat everything that we do with that, but I entirely agree that there should be real restrictions and a victim's voice in the disclosure exercise. I come to character references. William Lloyd-Lavery was mentioned: it is despicable that two character references were given to that man. We need to separate for the public the two types of character reference, which are fundamentally different. One is given prior to conviction, which is useful for a court. Any defendant should be entitled to say, "I know people who can say that I would not act like that and have no propensity to act like that". That is entirely different. However, post-conviction character references for sexual offences are obscene, because the person who gives such a reference does so knowing that it will be read out when someone has just been convicted of a sexual offence. Their character is neither here nor there. Those references are obscene. I condemned utterly David Campbell for giving that reference.

I will give way to the Minister in one second. I said that, if he had still been a member of my party when he gave that reference, he would not have been a member of my party the day after. I also find it disturbing that the chief executive of the Law Society would give a character reference to someone convicted of a sexual assault. Frankly, that person should not still be in post. That is my view. I will give way to the Minister.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:11 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