Debate contribution: Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Stephen Dunne on .

MLA
Mr Stephen Dunne
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 5046356

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, and I thank Mr Beattie for proposing it. As a party, we are fully committed to supporting measures that improve people's experiences in our criminal justice system. Victims must come first. Unfortunately, in recent years, it appears that that has not always been the case. That is highlighted in the motion, which refers to "lenient sentences". We will, hopefully, see improvement. We want to raise confidence, particularly amongst women and girls who are the victims of abuse, in people's ability to pursue prosecutions and bring perpetrators to justice. To do that, complainants, victims, defendants, witnesses and society as a whole need to have confidence in our law and justice system. Unfortunately, evidence from the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime suggests that confidence in our criminal justice system is lacking, with only 7% of respondents being fairly confident that the criminal justice system could deliver for victims of crime. The reality is that our justice system must do better. The lack of confidence in the system will only discourage victims from coming forward. As noted in the motion, recent figures show that 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are classed as repeat offenders, which is a shocking statistic in 2025. That indicates a failure of sentencing to properly deter offenders and a failure of our justice system as a whole to adequately reform and rehabilitate. In addition to the impact that they have on prisoners and reoffending rates, we must not lose sight of the impact that lenient sentences have on the victims of crime and their families. Figures that my colleague Jonathan Buckley revealed recently found that just over 10% of those who were convicted at court for sexual offences against children received a custodial sentence of more than five years. We must ask ourselves this: what kind of message does that send out about our society's ability to protect our most vulnerable and to punish those who so disgracefully prey upon them? I know that many members of the public right across Northern Ireland have shared their disgust at what they view to be sentences that do not remotely reflect the seriousness of the crime. Ironically, shorter sentences, whilst alarming the public and failing to deter would-be offenders, also often do not provide the adequate time for meaningful rehabilitation support to be put in place. To that end, the sentence fails to achieve either of its goals. A sentencing council, as we heard, could make the sentencing process more transparent, and there is an opportunity for the Department to explore that. Many constituents raise genuine concerns about a lack of fairness in sentencing. In England and Wales, one of the key aims of the guidelines that the Sentencing Council issued is the achievement of consistency of approach in sentencing. In conclusion, I want to touch upon a particular crime that was raised in the debate and highlighted just last week by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland's Let Them Protect campaign. I was pleased to be able to attend the event for that campaign, and I know that the Minister attended as well. It is important that we always keep focused on what we can do to protect our emergency service workers and everyone who works in the public sector. The campaign rightly calls for heavier fines and longer custodial sentences for people who commit totally unacceptable assaults on those public-sector workers. For too long, criminals have felt that they can punch, kick, spit and ram policemen and policewomen, as well as many of our other public-sector workers, without fear of serious punishment. I urge the Justice Minister to outline clearly how her Department will improve protections for all emergency service workers and help to improve the justice system, particularly for victims.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
  • Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.06No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.01
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.55
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.42
No identity-related subject0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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