Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4494328

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, I want to put on record my pleasure that the Assembly has taken an interest in this important issue and also that it gives me the opportunity to clarify my ongoing commitment to successfully delivering hate crime legislation in the current mandate. I want to begin by stating clearly that hate and prejudice have no place in our society. Recent events demonstrate only too well the appalling and destructive impact that hate can have on society in Northern Ireland. Just yesterday, I listened to Lilian Seenoi-Barr, who has made history as the first black mayor in Northern Ireland, speak about the racial abuse, including death threats, that she has had to endure. A few weeks ago, I heard Jay Basra, an election candidate for the UUP, speaking out against the racist abuse that he has suffered. I also listened in horror as the parents of three-year-old twins described a transphobic attack on their young children. I am reminded of Takura Makoni, who was forced to move out of his home with his family due to racist and anti-immigrant intimidation earlier this year, as well as the terrifying footage of a sectarian attack on the home of a young mother and her toddler in Lurgan last year. Those are just a few examples, but, whether it is directed at political representatives, candidates, a young single mum, ethnic minorities or trans members of the community, each of those incidents is not just wrong but utterly destructive. Even one incident is too many. Not only does each hate-motivated incident impact on the primary victim but the ripple goes outwards through their family, friends and other members of their community. That does not, in talking about hate crime legislation, create a hierarchy of victims, as some people have suggested. It recognises the wider impact of crime that is committed with a hate motivation, and the creation of secondary and tertiary victims. I hope that all Members from right across the Chamber would join me in condemning the actions of those who seek to stoke hatred and deepen the divide in our communities. It is my wish that, as we discuss the motion, we send a united message to those who target someone because of who they are or what they believe that it is not acceptable and that they will face the full force of the law. A commitment to improve current legislation to support hate crime victims was included in the draft Programme for Government in 2016-2021. Providing a victim-centred legislation outcome has been a key priority for me as Justice Minister, and remains so. Members will know that, in December 2020, Judge Desmond Marrinan released his independent review of hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland. Recommendations from Judge Marrinan's review have provided a valuable framework in which to strengthen current legislation. They have provided the impetus to ensure that action is taken where necessary and to increase victims' confidence in the system that brings offenders to justice. Hate crimes are committed, as I said, against an individual based on a personal attribute or group identity. They are known to have a pronounced impact on victims, and the ramifications can extend beyond the direct victim to their communities by signalling that members of certain groups are not welcomed, valued or worthy of equal respect. Effective hate crime legislation can provide redress to victims, ensure that sentences reflect the harm that is caused not just to the victim but to wider society and support law enforcement agencies in the operation of their own hate crime policies. Following Judge Marrinan's review recommendations, the Department accepted the need for a new legislative statutory aggravation model for all criminal offences, whereby each existing offence can be aggravated and provision for higher maximum sentences will be retained. That is the central element of hate crime reform and is the most impactful part of Judge Marrinan's report for victims. Having met him recently, I know that he would agree that that is crucial. A stand-alone foundational hate crime Bill was originally scheduled to be introduced in the current mandate as the fourth Bill in this mandate. Since 2020, substantial and valuable work has been undertaken by my Department in implementing Judge Marrinan's 34 recommendations, including progress in working towards the development of that hate crime Bill. That has included the delivery of a wide-ranging phase 1 public consultation on a range of Judge Marrinan's recommendations and the publication of a consultation findings report and a way-forward document. Following that, my Department progressed preparatory work for the introduction of legislation, including the commencement of draft instructions for some of those phase 1 policy positions. The Department has also undertaken significant engagement with a wide range of stakeholders as part of the policy development process. That has included regular discussions with criminal justice partners to consider the operational aspects of hate crime legislation proposals, particularly in relation to the introduction of the statutory aggravation model. Engagement with a broad spectrum of non-statutory organisations representing hate crime advocacy and victims' groups has also been maintained. Briefings with political parties to inform and update Members have also been offered and, in most cases, have taken place. Officials have also been monitoring the progress of the introduction of hate crime legislation in other jurisdictions. Policy development on hate crime issues often involves consideration of complex and publicly contested issues, and we have heard references to that already here today. Indeed, it is evident that, in recent debates on freedom of speech and cultural and political expression, views have become increasingly polarised. In that context, I am very mindful of the need to balance the protection of freedom of expression with protection for victims of hate crime and hate speech, and to do no harm. I am determined to do all that I can to ultimately achieve the appropriate balance between protecting minority communities across our society whilst protecting freedom of expression. The two are not in conflict. The loss of two years of Assembly business time and the constraint on resources in the Department and the wider justice system has, however, left my Department facing some difficult decisions. It has significantly restricted the range of legislative reforms possible within the time now available in this shortened mandate. As Members will be aware, Executive Bills are drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC). All Ministers have been advised that there is restricted resource here, limited to one Bill per Department per year, and that, if any further Bills are added, that should be on a one in, one out basis. In that context, it was evident to me that a stand-alone hate crime Bill could not, therefore, be fully developed to address all of Desmond Marrinan's recommendations in the remaining three years of this mandate. In fact, when considering the original legislative programme, that stand-alone Bill would have been the fourth of five Bills, effectively moving it into the next mandate, with a three-year mandate. It is precisely because I prioritise hate crime that I made the decision at the start of the mandate to bring forward the most impactful elements of legislation for victims, to be delivered in this mandate as foundational hate crime provisions. I reassure the Member for Foyle that there are no intentions to water down the hate crime provisions or to, in any way, weaken the provisions that will be made in hate crime legislation. Nevertheless, one can only do so much in the time available, and, despite what some Members described as the glacial pace of legislation in this place, it is important to remind them that we had two years of the previous mandate followed by three years of this mandate, which equates to a five-year mandate. The Department of Justice has already brought forward five substantive pieces of legislation. We are awaiting Executive approval for another significant piece of legislation to come forward, hopefully before the summer recess, and there will be two further Bills in this mandate. I think that eight Bills in five years — the equivalent of one term — is not glacial. I actually think that it is quite impressive for the Department to have been able to achieve that, despite the disruption to its normal functioning. I am now considering which of two possible legislative vehicles — a victims of hate crime Bill or a split between a victims and a sentencing Bill — would be most appropriate to deliver progress urgently. As part of those considerations, my officials and I have been engaging with the sectoral groups that represent those minority communities that we are seeking to protect. The only impact for victims of hate crime will be which provisions can be delivered in this mandate and how soon they will take effect. Whether that happens through a stand-alone Bill or as part of a wider piece of legislation, the provisions that I intend to deliver in this mandate, which I will come to shortly, are the same. The core element of a statutory aggravator model will remain the foundation for all other future provisions. A number of considerations will influence my final decision on that. However, a key consideration is the fact that, if the statutory aggravator model were moved into the sentencing Bill, it would be in force one year sooner than if it were in the victims Bill, or if it were in a stand-alone hate crime Bill, it would be in force one mandate sooner. Whichever option is finally landed upon, the introduction of a new statutory aggravation model for prosecuting hate crime will provide a system-wide response to the criminalisation of hate crime, allowing for better outcomes for victims. That new model will become the core method of prosecuting hate crimes in Northern Ireland. All existing offences will be able to be aggravated by hostility that is based on membership or perceived membership of a group based on race, religion, disability or sexual orientation, which are the current protected groups. It will also, however, extend the model to cover transgender identity, and we hope to also include sectarian motivation in this first foundational phase. That is the entire extent of the hate crime provisions on which we consulted as part of the phase 1 consultation, and it reflects the extent of the provisions intended to form the stand-alone Bill in a five-year mandate. Members have asked about this: no new offences will be created by the proposed model. The model will be an aggravating model, and, in that way, if someone commits a crime that is motivated by hate and the crime can be proven but the motivation cannot, they can still be convicted of the underlying crime. It is only when the hate motivation can be made out in court that the aggravator will then be applied to sentencing. I also want that model to recognise intersectionality, and a number of Members referenced that. Furthermore, as there are a number of recommendations for additional hate crime classes, which are to be consulted on as part of the phase 2 consultation, I am working towards future-proofing the legislation by allowing other groups to be added at a later date if evidence in consultation shows that they are needed. That would allow us to move at pace to respond to emerging trends without the need for further primary legislation, and it would allow us to add to the list by secondary legislation and regulation. To be clear, the phase 1 public consultation to which I referred sought views on the introduction of the new statutory aggravation model; sectarian offending in hate crime law; elements of stirring-up-hatred offences; replacing the dwelling defence with the defence of private conversations, which a number of Members referenced and which I will come to; special measures and protection from cross-examination for victims of hate crime; and exploring misogyny and transmisogyny in hate crime law. However, the phase 2 consultation is intended to take forward for consultation recommendations that include the protected characteristics of gender, age and various sex characteristics as well as a duty to remove hate expression from public space. That was due to take place later in 2024. However, due to the need to bring forward the most impactful elements of legislation for victims in this mandate, that phase 2 consultation will need to be rescheduled to a later date so that officials can draft the new model provisions for the forthcoming legislation as to be determined. Having met Judge Marrinan recently, I know that he is also of the view that the public order elements of the recommendations in his report would be best advanced as separate legislation to be progressed in the next mandate, and I concur with him on that. I have mentioned that I intend to allow victims of hate crime to have automatic entitlement to special measures and to be protected from in-person cross-examination. Again, I intend to advance those provisions in this mandate as part of the victims Bill in order to ensure that the measures are place for prosecutions under the new hate crime provisions. Legislation alone will not reduce hate crime, so we need a collaborative approach to dealing with intolerance, prejudice and hate. Education, early intervention and collaborative working are all important.

Work continues in my Department on the non-legislative parts of Judge Marrinan's review. For example, we appointed Northern Ireland's Victims of Crime Commissioner Designate two years ago: Judge Marrinan recommended that in his report. The commissioner designate has special responsibility for hate crime. I hope to put that office on a statutory footing in the victims Bill in this mandate. Direct support to victims of hate crime from my Department and the PSNI through the Hate Crime Advocacy Service is also delivering specialist support.

As I said, issues of telecommunication are outwith the devolved space. However, I continue to work with Ofcom and the Home Office on the Online Safety Act 2023. Members are aware that I feel that it needs to go further than it does at the moment. As Minister of Justice, my role is to deliver a programme that maximises what we can achieve and prioritises the needs of all victims of crime. In the current context, what we are doing with Judge Marrinan's report meets those criteria. Building safe communities in the current challenging climate requires difficult choices, but it is right that we should prioritise hate crime in this mandate, deliver the most impactful elements of the legislative framework and ensure that people can be prosecuted where it is clear that their crime is motivated by prejudice and hatred. We should build a society where —

— diversity is not merely tolerated but embraced and celebrated and where people are safe.

2,467 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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