Debate contribution: Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 23 June 2025.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

23 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5046389

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate, because sentencing is a vital part of the justice system in Northern Ireland and one that is frequently poorly understood. It often involves complex considerations requiring a delicate balance to be struck between the rights of defendants on the one hand and the needs and expectations of victims and the general public on the other. Furthermore, effective and appropriate sentencing policy is fundamental to the success of the Department's mission to reduce offending, deal firmly and fairly with those who offend and deal with them in a way that benefits communities and recognises the hurt that can be suffered by victims, whilst assisting offenders to change their offending behaviour and maintaining public confidence in the system more widely. With those aims in mind, since taking office for the first time in 2020, I have been committed to improving sentencing policy in Northern Ireland. I have specifically increased the sentencing for serious sexual offences, created additional offences and introduced increases in the sentences for domestic violence and abuse crimes. It is important to note that that is the case. However, the complexity of the issues and, more significantly, the disruption to the functioning of these institutions have delayed the implementation of those plans. Members will be aware that I plan to introduce a sentencing Bill, for which we have been waiting for some time, by the end of this year. That will include clauses to give effect to the findings of the Department's previous sentencing policy review, which was conducted in 2016-17; the creation of Charlotte's law, a range of bespoke provisions designed to encourage those who kill in no-body murder cases to reveal the whereabouts of their victims' remains; and the creation of a statutory aggravator model in hate crime cases. The Member will be pleased to know that the Bill will also introduce, in relation to the issue of enhanced sentencing, an aggravating factor for those who work in public service or deliver a public duty. The measures in the proposed Bill are designed to increase public safety, reduce reoffending and help to create a more effective, transparent and efficient justice system, aligning with the Programme for Government's safer communities priority and the aim that everyone should feel safe and that we all respect the law and one another. From listening to today's discussion, I know that perceptions of what sentencing should be and should do vary widely around the Chamber. The Department's previous sentencing policy review considered that it would be desirable to have a clear understanding of the principles and purposes of sentencing, as that can improve clarity, awareness and understanding of and public confidence in sentencing and, while not treading on judicial independence, might assist the courts with achieving consistency in their sentencing decisions. The sentencing Bill will therefore also make provision for the principles and purposes of sentencing for adult offenders.

The principles will be that there should be proportionality, fairness and transparency. The purposes will be punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation, because paying something back to society when a person has committed an offence is an important part of the process. During this mandate, I also intend to undertake a further review of sentencing issues that have emerged since the previous review was completed. Sentencing guideline mechanisms will be one of the issues that I intend to include for consideration in the review, with one potential option being the introduction of a sentencing council for Northern Ireland, as is proposed in the motion. When considering the utility of such an organisation, it will be important to take into account the particular needs of our own jurisdiction and criminal justice system. That will be done by learning from other jurisdictions and also by taking on board the views of other stakeholders involved. Although the Member said that he intends to bring forward something as part of the proposed sentencing Bill, I think that it would be wrong for him to do so ahead of a fully considered and consulted-on process that looks at the utility and value for money that a sentencing council would bring versus what we have at the moment under the auspices of the LCJ. We are also planning to look at other sentencing reviews. We have identified a number of issues for consideration, including the use of character references — an issue that was also raised today — although we will look at those in particular in domestic and sexual violence trials; sentences for serious sexual offences; and sentences for drug offences. All those matters have been touched on today, as we recognise that they are of serious concern. We will also consider recommendations arising from the recent review of sentencing in England and Wales. If further legislation is considered necessary, that will lead to a further sentencing Bill at a future point, which will hopefully be well informed by public feedback. In practice, the challenging task of determining an appropriate sentence —.

I am happy to have a separate discussion about bail conditions, but the focus of the considerations will be on sentencing. Bail does not apply to those who are sentenced. It is certainly something that we can have a chat about down the line, however. In practice, the skilled judiciary have the job of delivering fair and appropriate sentences independently of government in every case that comes before the courts, based on the evidence that is presented. Sentencing is a complex issue, and it is unique in each case. Judges have to consider carefully all the factors that relate to a case, along with any sentencing guidance, which is a matter for the courts, and established sentencing principles before they come to their final determination. As is stated in the motion, judicial guidance and training are managed by the Lady Chief Justice and delivered by the Judicial Studies Board. Any attempt to intervene or to direct in that regard would be a major encroachment on judicial independence. It is important that we listen to the LCJ on those issues. Where a sentence is considered unduly lenient, the Director of Public Prosecutions can refer an eligible case to the Court of Appeal for consideration within 28 days of sentencing. Over the past year or so, we have seen a number of cases being so referred. At present, approximately two thirds of Crown Court sentences fall within the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. My proposed sentencing Bill, however, will include provision to extend the arrangements to apply to all sentences that are imposed in the Crown Court. That approach takes account of feedback received during the Department's most recent sentencing policy review and aims to make the scheme more transparent and easily understood in order to ensure that it achieves maximum impact and improves confidence in sentencing.

Yes.

I do not propose to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme to the Magistrates' Court, for the reason that the difference between the maxima and the minima in the Magistrates' Court is so small that it would clog up the courts with consideration of something that may amount to only a month or two of a difference. Doing so would therefore diminish the scheme's purpose. There is, however, a wider issue that someone else touched on, which concerns careful consideration of where the PPS decides to prosecute a case and whether it decides to do that summarily or on indictment.

Sentencing in any cases that are heard at the Crown Court will be included. It is also important to highlight that decisions on where an offence is tried are made independently and on a case-by-case basis and take into account a variety of factors, including whether the court has sufficient sentencing powers to reflect the seriousness of the offence. Often, the sentences that people are concerned about are those that are handed down by the Magistrates' Court, but it should be noted that the maximum sentence for most cases in the Magistrates' Court is two years. Therefore, the decision to prosecute in the Magistrates' Court automatically limits what is available to the judiciary in those cases. I move on to the issue of repeat offending in the context of prisons. Despite the Northern Ireland Prison Service facing acute challenges against the backdrop of a significant rise in the prison population, many members of which have increasingly complex needs, it continues to seek to prioritise rehabilitation and support and to challenge prisoners to change and address their offending behaviour to reduce their risk of reoffending on release. The Prison Service works with partners in the statutory, voluntary and community, pastoral and education sectors to deliver a range of programmes and interventions to encourage desistance from reoffending on release. They range from support for dealing with addictions, mental health challenges and past trauma to programmes that support parenting skills and change attitudes that lead to violence against women and girls. Those programmes are kept under constant review to ensure that they align with the needs and priorities of the prison population. When I talk about complex needs, it is also worth referring to what Mr Durkan said about the number of women who are remanded in custody or face custodial sentences. Often, prison is seen as being the provider of last resort. If people have issues with addiction or mental health, a judge will often remand them in custody to put them into a place of safety. One of the difficulties is that so many of our women feel that Hydebank Wood is the safest place for them to be. It is a real challenge if they do not feel safe at home or in the community but do feel safe and protected when they are with us in prison, because that is not where we should be dealing with those issues. A wide range of educational, vocational and employability skills are under continuous review, and the Prison Service has introduced additional services from statutory partners in prisons to enhance the support that is available for prisoners in the weeks leading up to their release. Those services include access to Housing Executive advisers to assist with accommodation planning and engagement with DFC work coaches to support employability and benefit readiness. Evidence shows that individuals are less likely to reoffend, as the Chair of the Justice Committee said, if they can access appropriate practical support and develop social bonds as they return to the community. Preparation for release is complex. We do not have a responsibility to people once they have gone through the prison door and we cannot intervene beyond the prison gate. At that point, responsibility passes to other members of the Executive regarding housing, communities and other things. Our responsibility is to draw those organisations through the gate and into the prison to provide that support. It is also worth noting that the LCJ has moved remand hearings to earlier in the week so that they do not happen on a Friday, because they often lead to people being released from prison without adequate support being in place, at short notice and without due warning. Although custodial sentences are often perceived to be a strong deterrent against offending and reoffending, evidence shows that reoffending can be reduced through rigorous sentences that are served in the community and that, with the right investment, community sentences can succeed where short prison sentences fail. There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of deterrents. However, many of the offences that are committed in Northern Ireland are impulsive acts and are the result of choices that have been made by often volatile and vulnerable individuals who are living complex and chaotic lives. The degree to which those people are considering what sentence they might get if they are caught is rather limited, so we should not place an over-reliance on the deterrent effect of sentencing when it comes to individuals of that nature. From our perspective, it is about trying to address the vulnerabilities to reduce the offending behaviours. Reoffending information shows that the rate of reoffending for adult offenders who were sentenced to a community order was nearly half that of adult offenders who were subject to a custodial sentence of fewer than 12 months. You cannot argue with those facts. If we are getting better results in the community and we are truly victim-focused, that is where we should be doing the work because that is how we will prevent more victims being created. That is why the Department has supported the roll-out of enhanced combination orders, which is a community based alternative to short prison sentences. This year, having been provided with some additional funding from the Department, the Probation Service is preparing to expand the availability of that to a further court area in 2025-26. We also know that other approaches can address reoffending. Early intervention projects have the ability to break the cycle of reoffending. Intervening upstream prevents future offending and reduces the number of victims. That includes addressing the intergenerational cycle of offending, where a grandparent, parent and child in a family have all had interaction with the justice system. However, reducing offending and reoffending and supporting rehabilitation are not solely the responsibility of the Department of Justice. In practice, that relies on cross-Executive and multi-agency collaboration. That is one of the pieces of work that we are doing, as set out in the Programme for Government commitment, on working collectively to develop a cross-departmental strategy to reduce offending and reoffending. My officials have started engagement across government to progress that. I am really pleased, actually, at the level of interest and commitment that there has been to date from other Departments. I have had the privilege in my role of meeting many victims and survivors who have shared their lived experience of the justice system. I recognise how helpful it can be for victims to be able to read what was said at sentencing hearings in slower time in order to aid their understanding and support their recovery from the impact of the crime. The Department has been working in conjunction with key stakeholders to look at options for providing victims with access to transcripts, taking account of the findings from a recent pilot exercise that was undertaken in other jurisdictions. That will fall within the scope of the draft victims and witnesses of crime strategy, which is out for public consultation at the moment. Let me be clear: rehabilitation is not the enemy of victims being at the heart of the justice system. Rehabilitation is about how we place victims at the heart of the justice system by ensuring that we do not see people reoffend and create more victims and that perpetrators are brought to be challenged and confronted about the impact of their crimes —

I cannot, unfortunately. I am about to finish. — so that we know that people will not go on to reoffend and create further trauma in the community and that victims will be recognised. That is one of the reasons why the work that the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime has done, for example, has been incredibly important in placing them at the heart of the system. In closing, I reinforce my commitment to improve sentencing policy in Northern Ireland. It is vital but complex, and it needs sensitive handling. I want to work collaboratively with key stakeholders, including Members. However, if we want to increase confidence in the justice system, talking it down in the media and the House on a daily basis is not the way in which to do it. Let us work together constructively and find the solutions that will build that confidence for us all.

2,627 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:52 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