Debate contribution: Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on 23 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Justin McNulty

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

23 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5046325

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the motion, which gets to the heart of a growing crisis of confidence in our justice system. It speaks for the victims who feel let down and for the public, who rightly ask, "Where is the deterrent in our sentencing? Where is the justice?". We fully recognise and firmly defend the independence and integrity of our judiciary, but independence does not mean immunity from public scrutiny. When our courts hand down sentences that fail to reflect the severity of the crimes that were committed, that scrutiny is not only valid but essential. The figures do not lie. In 2020, an astonishing 80% — 80% — of those who were sentenced for the offence of sexual communication with a child avoided prison, with 38% receiving suspended sentences and 42% getting community sentences. For online abuse, eight out of 10 perpetrators attract non-custodial sentences. What message does that send? I met representatives from the Marie Collins Foundation. They are trying hard to bring about changes in sentencing, especially for sentences that relate to technology-assisted child sexual abuse. They are screaming for sentencing reform on that front. We are talking about heinous crimes that are committed against children, yet the punishment that is handed down is little more than a slap on the wrist. Where is the deterrent? Where is the justice for the victim? Where is the protection for the public? Where is the protection for children? People may contest how technology-assisted child sexual abuse is not violence, but how else would one characterise taking a child's image through coercion, manipulation, deceit and fear and then using it to extort, threaten and maintain the pretence of a relationship? How can we say that our sentencing is appropriate, given the vile, extreme and violent online abuse that takes place? Our justice system is not hitting the key sentencing principles of punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has been elevated so highly that we are now not meeting the punishment threshold. The assumption is that online forms of abuse are not as damaging as contact offending. Academic research blows that out of the water, and lived experience groups can attest to how deeply damaging and long-lasting the effects of technology-assisted child sexual abuse are on their lives. The perpetual nature of such images is hugely damaging to them, and it forces victims to lead small lives. I therefore ask this with genuine disappointment and some confusion: why does Sinn Féin want to water down the motion?

Why remove a reference to the:

"urgent need for sentencing policy to do more to deter reoffending and protect the public",

especially when the motion focuses on serious offences, including sexual crime and sexual crimes against children? Is Sinn Féin really comfortable with sending out the message that it is soft on serious and sexual crime and sexual crime against children and that deterrence is somehow an optional extra in our justice system? I hope not, but that is what its amendment implies.

Of course.

Thank you. I have read the amendment. I know what it says. Is Sinn Féin really comfortable with sending out the message that it is soft on serious and sexual crime and sexual crime against children and that deterrence is somehow an optional extra in our justice system? I hope not, but that is what its amendment implies. Let me be absolutely clear: rehabilitation matters. The SDLP believes in giving people a path away from offending and reducing reoffending through education, support and resettlement, but rehabilitation must never replace accountability, especially in the case of serious or violent crimes and crimes against children. Almost 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are repeat offenders, which is a clear and damning signal that our system is failing. We need sentencing that protects the public, deters repeat offending and meets the expectations of victims and wider society. Rehabilitation alone will not achieve that, and mitigation in the form of character references is absurd, especially in relation to child sexual abuse, given that being a good citizen is a key and integral part of grooming and getting access to children. If someone were convicted of GBH, would being a good boxer be a mitigating factor? If not, why should being a good citizen be a mitigating factor in relation to access to children?

Of course.

That is why we support the creation of a sentencing council for Northern Ireland to provide consistency, transparency and, above all, a robustness in how justice is delivered and how children are protected.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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

Challenge this classification