Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 14 January 2025.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

14 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ending Violence Against Women and Girls

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4736219

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We agree with the thrust of the motion but have sought to add another layer to the process by inserting the need for consultation. The issues and rights are very sensitive, difficult and finely balanced, and it is imperative that everybody — complainants, victims, witnesses, defendants, families and society as a whole — can have confidence in the law, the justice system, due process and the right to a fair trial. Gillen came in post the rugby trial.

We are years further on, and there has been considerable learning since that was introduced. Society has moved on in some ways with regard to relationships and intimacy, so it would be helpful for the public to have their say. From the outset, I wish to be clear that we in the DUP are committed to supporting measures that improve experiences of the criminal justice system for victims of violent and sexual crime throughout Northern Ireland. In particular, we want to raise confidence among women and girls who are victims of such abuse to pursue prosecutions, bring their perpetrators to justice and obtain the support that they need. Consultation, engagement and building a clear and informed evidence base for moving forward are necessary also to uphold the right to a fair trial for defendants in such cases. That said, our proposal for consultation should in no way be regarded as an attempt to delay or limit progress towards providing better support to victims of violence against women and girls. A sexual attack or sexual abuse is, to my mind, one of the worst things that can happen to a person; it is life-changing. Likewise, to be wrongly accused is also devastating and life-changing. That is why any move that we make must ensure that the balance within a trial setting is right and that the pendulum does not swing in one direction or the other. The focus must be on due process in which everybody concerned, and everybody looking on, can have confidence. Therefore, with regard to the defence of reasonable belief, however we move, we need to be very clear about what exactly in law is a failure to ascertain consent. Also, rather than on a case-by-case basis, which can be a moveable feast, there should be a degree of certainty about what constitutes an offence and a breach of the law. There needs to be clarity about what are the reasonable steps to ascertain consent, and what constitutes a failure to take them — not just for jurors, the judiciary and lawyers but for society. People navigating relationships in this difficult age need to be clear what the law is and what will be regarded as a crime. In some cases, it will be incredibly obvious. Unfortunately, those are not the cases that these recommendations seek to address. Moreover, in difficult cases, it is often likely that judgement on one or both sides will be impaired by drugs or alcohol. In those circumstances, it is going to very difficult for jurors to establish, one way or another, what the position is on consent, so there needs to be a discussion as to whether everything around this can be more straightforward and clearer. Additionally, consultation would prove valuable in that it should focus the public's mind on the issue of consent and allow for public discourse. On rape myths education, a number of steps have already been taken by the Lady Chief Justice and the Courts and Tribunals Service to advance Gillen's recommendations for the trial education of jurors, particularly in respect of legal responsibilities in the use of social media. We welcome that, as will those who are affected by cases. The outstanding commitment to provide jurors with rape trial myth education materials engages sensitive issues. We agree that Northern Ireland should await the findings and insight from the pilot in England and allow those to inform us. We will need to be clear what rape myths are, and what exactly the jury is being educated in. Jury education is fundamental and has immense power to sway or determine the outcome of any case. Therefore, it must be done in such a way that it does not constitute putting a thumb on the scale either way. Again, consultation is helpful and allows the public to engage in the debate, keeping those issues to the fore. Whilst the motion focuses on two discrete elements that impact on the handling of prosecutions relating to violence against women and girls, there is one further point that I wish to make. We must remember that this is a societal problem requiring a collaborative, whole-society approach. Also, it should not be the case that the Executive's strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls translates into lesser focus and a lack of urgency on the part of the police, the criminal justice system and society in tackling harm against male victims of this terrible abuse. However we proceed, we must do so with due care and diligence. It is essential that we get this right. Sexual offence cases are complex to investigate and prosecute, and we must enable and encourage victims to seek justice, ensure that prosecutors have the opportunity and tools to bring forward these cases, and equip jurors and the judiciary with an informed and impartial understanding of the law in these areas. We must ensure that everyone with a stake in the criminal justice system is treated equitably and fairly. The recent, steady, long-term picture of sexual offence prosecutions —

— must not be undermined by legislation that adds confusion or complexity. Ultimately, it is critical that the guilty are convicted but crucial that the innocent are acquitted.

I urge Members to support the amendment.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:47 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