Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Justin McNulty

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

1 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4562909

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I speak in my capacity as the SDLP member of the Justice Committee. Yesterday, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, Geraldine Hanna, presented us with statistics about our justice system that, frankly, the Department of Justice and the Executive should be ashamed of. Of the respondents to the victims' survey, 63% said that the police did not investigate their crimes properly, and 50% were dissatisfied with how they were treated by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Only 9% of respondents believed that they received enough support during the court process. Only 7% of respondents were confident that the criminal justice system could deliver for victims of crime. That is only scratching the surface of the stark reality of our justice system that is portrayed in the survey results. The commissioner designate described the results as:

"nothing short of an SOS from victims of crime."

It is in the context of that abysmal picture that we must examine the Justice Bill. With respect to retention periods for DNA and biometric material, I note that the definition of those materials is vague. I am concerned that it does not provide sufficient protections for victims of sexual crimes; nor does it take into consideration the number of legacy issues ongoing in the North as a result of our violent history. We must also question whether sufficient provisions exist to protect children under that section of the law. It is vital that our children are adequately protected. I welcome the many provisions in the Bill that seek to improve the experience of children in our justice system, in line with the strategic framework for youth justice. The Youth Justice Agency, however, has raised questions about the retention and recruitment of adequately trained staff and general resourcing in the youth justice sector, so I wonder how the Bill will be fully implemented without adequate funding. I also question why there is no provision for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10, given that, as it stands, the age is not considered to be internationally acceptable by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. I would be interested to know how the experiences of children and young people were taken into account during the drafting of the Bill. I am pleased about the inclusion of the no bill provisions, which are a step towards ensuring that victims get full justice. At the same time, however, we are still suffering from serious delays in the system, which harm victims. How can victims even be sure that their cases will get to trial in the first place? I say that with huge concern. The Department of Justice's policy of payment delays currently most impacts on people from marginalised and deprived backgrounds and their access to justice. The Chairperson of the Justice Committee has already highlighted concern about the Department's intention to introduce additional provisions by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. I am particularly concerned about the possibility of such provisions amending rehabilitation periods in order to shorten the existing rehabilitation periods and to allow more convictions to become spent. Criminal Justice Inspection has repeatedly told us that, owing to the high numbers of prisoners serving short-term sentences and the inconsistent quality of and access to rehabilitation services, prisoners are losing out on employment, housing or family contact. Prisoners serving short-term sentences — we have high numbers of those — are also not subject to post-custody supervision, and the support services available to help them transition to community life are seriously limited. We know that that directly increases the risk of reoffending, which poses a serious problem for victims of crime and, yet again, breaches their trust. I will come back to the victims' survey results that I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution. The commissioner designate said:

"This has to be a wake-up call to every part of our system."

I ask the Chamber this: when is the Department of Justice going to wake up? When is the Justice Minister going to wake up? Why is the Minister bringing late amendments to the Justice Bill? Why do the Justice Minister and the Department —.

I thank the Minister for her points, but why do the Justice Minister and the Department of Justice feel it is appropriate to employ Henry VIII powers? Is it the Justice Minister's modus operandi to legislate via royal proclamation? We must consider the Bill's provisions while fully acknowledging the trauma that the system inflicts on victims who have bravely come forward to report a crime and thinking of those who have not come forward because they know that the system is not adequately resourced to help them. The question that we must ask ourselves today and at every stage of the Bill is this: how will it directly, tangibly and positively impact on the experience of every victim who comes into contact with any part of our justice system? Victims are begging the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister to wake up.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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