Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 14 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

14 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ending Violence Against Women and Girls

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4736291

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I preface my remarks by saying that I listened with some disbelief this morning to the Member from Sinn Féin pontificate about violence against women and girls. There was no such concern shown by the republican movement, which decided that an innocent woman in my constituency, Yvonne Dunlop, should die. There was no pretrial education for the killers of mother of 10, Jean McConville. Members, we all know the name George Floyd. This Building was lit up in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. We all know the name Stephen Lawrence. His family are to be commended for their fight for justice. How many in the Chamber know the names Lucy Lowe, Charlene Downes and Victoria Agoglia, who were all murdered by Pakistani rape gangs? When there was a chance to do something about that issue and call a public inquiry, what did the MPs from the parties represented in this House do? Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and three of the five DUP MPs were nowhere to be seen. The calls for a national inquiry into abuse by grooming gangs will, however, not go away, nor should they. I have always been opposed to violence against women and girls. That is not something that the First Minister can bring herself to say. I tabled a question for written answer on 24 September 2024 asking the First Minister and deputy First Minister:

" in light of the publication of the Strategic Framework to End Violence Against Women and Girls, for their assessment of whether violence against women and girls in the period between 1969 and 1998 was wrong."

The reply came back two months later:

"All violence against women and girls is wrong."

Members, I am still waiting for an update on a follow-up question, which asked them to provide an answer in the past tense. That said, I want to explain why I will oppose the motion. My opposition relates to its call for the introduction of pretrial jury education. Jury independence is of paramount importance. Pretrial jury education smacks of trying to shape jury thinking, as per the educator. Importantly, juries in sex cases already get special direction. For example, a juror cannot infer anything from how the victim was dressed. In addition, those juries, like every jury, are directed on the law by the judge before they retire to consider their verdict.

Yes.

I thank the Member for his intervention. The difference is that it is up to the judge to direct within the legal setting rather than somebody who can put their own slant on it. It is carefully managed in the courtroom by the judge, which is not what the motion calls for. There is no stipulation or guidance on what pretrial education would look like. The Member fails to recognise that something being dressed up as education would be in danger of colouring the thinking of the jury, thereby diminishing the independence that comes from the life experience of its members. I want to see an end to violence against women and girls, but I am not in favour of meddling with our tried and tested jury system.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification