Debate contribution: Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 23 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

23 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5046423

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. It has been a genuinely excellent debate. I enjoyed all the contributions, and I will reference some of those when I get through a number of points that I want to make myself. Our justice system must do more than just process cases, as has been reiterated by many today. It must inspire confidence that justice is being served, because the purpose of justice, in its pure sense, is to give justice to the victims. Whilst I agree with the Minister and with the amendment that rehabilitation must form a crucial part of that, the first role of the judiciary is to see that justice is done. Today's motion speaks of the growing crisis in confidence, where victims, survivors and the wider public are left questioning whether the sentences handed down truly reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. I note in some of the commentary, which has been fair, that we must separate serious crime with enduring harm from petty crime, because they are two very different things. The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the independence and integrity of the judiciary, and we must not lose sight of the fact that the judiciary has paid a heavy price in this country over many years. The motion respects that and acknowledges the complexity of the cases that come before the courts — it is never easy — but the motion also recognises the importance that ongoing judicial training, as directed by the Lady Chief Justice, should be central to that. The motion confronts a deeply uncomfortable truth: for many victims and, probably more noticeably, members of the public, sentencing decisions in some of the most serious crimes, including violent assaults, repeat offending and, yes, sexual offences against children, have been perceived as lenient to the point of injustice. I need only to go back to 2023, when a deeply disturbing case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions: two men were convicted — one, after the trial — on a guilty plea. They were found guilty of rape and sexual abuse of a child who was under 13, alongside offences relating to class A drugs and the unlawful removal of that child. One received a nine-year sentence and the other just 6·5 years, yet the Court of Appeal, while accepting the concerns about leniency from the Director of Public Prosecutions, declined to alter the sentence because it could not — because the law stipulates that the judge or the court must have got it wrong; whether it was lenient or not is not something that the Court of Appeal can look at.

That is wrong. It is utterly wrong. That is not just a legal technicality. It cuts to the heart of public faith in the justice system, a system that is considered to be unduly lenient when it undermines confidence in justice. Even then, courts may choose not to intervene, as I have outlined. That gap between principle and practice is what the motion is trying to address. I welcome the fact that the Minister has put on record some of the changes that she intends to make, but I am not sure that they encapsulate the situation that I have just outlined, which is the difference between the DPP asking for a lenient sentence to be looked at and it being fixed to the ground, because, if the court did not make a mistake in the sentencing, it cannot be found to have been too lenient. We see the consequences of inaction in —

I totally accept and agree with the Minister's point, but it is not the point that I was making. I was not suggesting that it was thought to be too lenient; I was saying that it was found to be too lenient, but the court could do nothing about it because the process had been followed. That was my point. That is what is wrong: if the court understands that the sentence that was passed down was too lenient but can do nothing about it because the process had been followed, the process needs to be looked at.

I will let you in again in a wee minute or two, because I am going to mention you again.

I will let you in again in a minute or two. I want to make a bit of progress, if that is OK. I want to make this point: we see the consequences of inaction played out in the public space with the rise of self-styled online child protection groups. Most of us probably see them in our Facebook feeds. We can understand why they are there. Sometimes, perhaps, those groups put themselves in danger and act in ways that may be seen to be inappropriate by the police or the judiciary, but their core aim is to address what they perceive to be lenient sentencing, particularly around child harm. If they feel that the judiciary or we are failing them, they will act. It is our job to reflect their frustrations. That should set alarm bells ringing. The justice system should never leave the public feeling that they must take matters into their own hands. I am not suggesting that —

If you are brief, Minister.

I thank the Minister. I never used the word "vigilantism": I referred to "self-styled online child protection groups" —

If that is what you want to call them, Minister, fill your boots. I will not hold the debate to one type of crime, which is what we have centred around. There was public outrage more recently about the torture and killing of animals. I will refer to one instance to reorientate us. Members will remember the appalling death of Luna the dog, and the fact that the perpetrator's sentencing seemed to be disconnected from the harm that was enacted. I remind the House of what, unfortunately, happened: the dog was beaten with a breeze block and then buried alive. The sentence was 17 weeks or something. It was absolutely appalling. It has been noted today that nearly 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are repeat offenders. That tells us everything that we need to know. The current system is not working. Guys, I used to work in the Prison Service; it is an awfully difficult job. I will shout about it, because it is a job that I loved dearly. One of the failures that we have — it is not necessarily mentioned in the motion — is the fact that there are too many individuals in our prisons. I think that it was Mr Durkan who spoke about the gender disparity: I totally agree with him. Our judiciary cannot even send some people to the right places. Our jails are full of people who, perhaps, need more help with mental health issues or addictions and stuff. That stops us providing the proper rehabilitation of the inmates who are there. We cannot rehabilitate properly when we do not have the space and capacity and when the staff are beleaguered. We will work with the Minister to fix those things. The motion calls for urgent reform, including a consultation on a sentencing council for Northern Ireland, and the basic dignity for victims of receiving a written copy of sentencing remarks. I will very briefly go through some of the comments that were made, and the Minister might want to make a point of clarity. Justin McNulty reminded us that it is not just about in-contact crime; there is also the rise of digital crime. That is something that we need to get ahead of. Mark H talked about gender inequality. When you talked about that, Mark, the thought that sprang to my mind was that perhaps there is more space in the women's prison and therefore women are more likely to be handed a judicial sentence. That indicates that we are not passing sentence on men because there is no room for them, which is bonkers.

I said that it might be.

Well, I am just suggesting. I thank Danny Baker from West Belfast, because he talked about the need to separate this from children. If we want to get ahead of the stream, we need to put a big effort into making sure that our young children do not fall foul of the sins of their fathers and mothers or whatever and do not end up in the judicial system. Joanne Bunting was forensic, as usual, in her analysis of the gaps and the failures. Jonny Buckley spoke of his experience of helping individuals affected by lenient sentences and then seeing people walking the streets and the fear that that instils. That is why I go back to the fact that the public do not have confidence. That is why we are here today. It is not about my ability, as someone with absolute experience; what we are reflecting today is the pressure that is felt in the community. I welcome most of what the Minister suggested, but there is one question that I will ask. You said at the start of your opening remarks that sentencing is misunderstood, but you did not say who it was misunderstood by. Can you tell me who you meant when you said that sentencing, including lenient sentencing, was misunderstood?

I thank the Minister for clearing that up. I disagree: I do not think that the public misunderstand that aspect of sentencing. They understand that, for serious crime, sentences are too lenient and that, in some cases, no justice is handed out to victims.

1,610 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