Debate contribution: Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 23 June 2025.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

23 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5046313

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. Of course sentencing should not be a populist undertaking but a punishment; a punishment that is commensurate with the crime, that is fundamentally effective and that acts as a deterrent. However, there can be no doubt that sentencing has a significant impact on the public's confidence in the criminal justice system, and, at present, that confidence is not necessarily high. Laypeople, Members included, may not fully understand the intricacies and complexities of sentencing, but they certainly recognise what is, in their view, a lenient sentence when they see it, especially for certain types of crime such as sexual crime, which is acknowledged in the motion, and animal cruelty, for which the public is often aghast and disgusted at the sentences meted out. Public discourse has been growing of late, because expectation is increasingly not meeting reality. It is also true that the public struggles with how sentencing works in practice and with the notion that the prison sentence is only part of the sentence that a person has been directed to serve, with the rest being served on licence. There is something of an expectation that someone's sentence should be their sentence, with monitoring to follow. Of course, that would not necessarily be straightforward, and it would have repercussions for our prisons etc, but it feeds into a feeling of there being leniency: an approach to crime that is less than vigorous. Sentences should act as a deterrent, but I remain to be convinced that the public feels that they do. Evidence indicates that the public is right, and that is having consequences. The motion states that 80% of prisoners here are repeat offenders. That is a staggering figure, indicative of something being badly wrong and that the system is failing victims and prisoners. Public confidence is also seriously eroded by excessive delays in the system, which show no signs of improvement. That can lead to some people wrongfully taking justice into their own hands or approaching paramilitary gangs for their version of swifter justice. Delays in the system lead increasingly to remand prisoners being released on time served, which is horrendous for their victims and means that they are unlikely to have engaged in any rehabilitative work whilst in prison. That is far from ideal.

They are recommended not to engage, lest that be seen as an admission of guilt. That should be looked at and worked through to ensure that any such work in prison is not necessarily regarded as detrimental to their case or an admission of wrongdoing. For people who are ultimately found guilty to be released with nothing to change their behaviour is not only bad for them; it is bad for society.

There is research into the ineffectiveness of sentences of less than 12 months. The cost of the revolving door prison and the impact on victims and society of repeat offenders' crimes mean that rehabilitation is imperative. Resettlement is just as important. The likelihood of reoffending diminishes considerably when a person has a stable home and a job. The release of prisoners on a Friday, particularly in the afternoon, is thus problematic. They do not have sufficient time to present to the Housing Executive or to make proper arrangements. They may be put into a hostel or an empty flat, with nothing, or end up back on the street, which can lead them to return to their previous chaotic life, resulting in reoffending. People in that situation whom I spoke to stated that they felt as though they were being teed up to fail. Given that various courts have distinct sentencing limitations, what can appear to be a lenient sentence is often the result of the hearing having taken place in a lower court with lower sentencing thresholds. The PPS should therefore, when it can, take care when selecting the court to which it refers prosecutions, and the Department should review which offences are summary and which are indictable. Animal cruelty is an example. In my lifetime, I have never heard of anybody who considered that a perpetrator of such repulsive acts received the sentence that they deserved. If the offence were indictable rather than summary, the PPS would be permitted to take the perpetrator to a higher court, where the higher severity of sentences would better reflect the crime and public feeling about it and act as a deterrent. Another fundamental issue in such cases is, of course, that people are sentenced to a ban on keeping animals, but, while the Justice and AERA Ministers continue to bat the issue of a register back and forth, it becomes yet another area of no real progress. Such a ban is therefore rendered worthless, as it cannot be properly implemented or enforced. The Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) has indicated that greater transparency in sentencing would be beneficial, as would the broadcasting of sentencing remarks in some cases. That would undoubtedly help the public to understand the judge's thinking: what was taken into account and how the sentence was reached. However, the Minister has indicated that she has neither the time nor the resources to progress that. Rightly, judges are independent, but the Minister is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the legislative framework. She is responsible for the effectiveness of the prison system and its rehabilitation services. She is responsible for the court service and addressing delays in it. The statistics and CJINI indicate that there is action but little by way of improvement. We know that, in the Minister's next Bill, we should see increases in maximum sentences and the use of non-custodial methods, but, whatever it includes, it is impact that counts, and the Minister and her Department need to deliver improvements and a framework that will command public confidence.

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

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:51 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