Member's statement: Ruby's Law
Member's statement by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- MLA
- Ms Claire Sugden
- Party at the time
- Independent
- Date
- 6 October 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Ruby's Law
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5156565
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to speak about the Ruby's law campaign. Ruby's law seeks to close a serious gap in our legal system, one that, too often, leaves victims of domestic abuse facing an impossible choice between their own safety and the safety of their pets. At present, our law treats animals as property. In domestic abuse cases, that means that a pet can be used as a tool of control that can be threatened, harmed or withheld to intimidate a partner to stop them leaving. Those working in the area will tell you that it happens much more often than people realise. Some victims remain in dangerous situations because they fear what will happen to their animals if they leave. Ruby's law would change that. It would allow our courts to include pets in non-molestation and occupation orders, recognising them as part of the household and ensuring their protection when a person seeks safety. It would also create clearer routes for emergency fostering or temporary care when someone has to leave home urgently. It is not just about animal welfare; it is about human welfare and closing another avenue of coercive control. Where animals are at risk, people are often at risk too, and that link has been proven. In England and Wales, the Ruby's law campaign has already prompted serious consideration of changes to the Family Law Act 1996 to allow courts to protect pets through non-molestation and occupation orders. Westminster has already passed the Pet Abduction Act 2024, which recognises animals as sentient beings, rather than mere property, under theft law. That is a significant step forward in how the law views the bond between people and their animals.
Across the UK, police guidance on coercive control already acknowledges threats or harm to pets as a recognised form of abuse. The Republic of Ireland has begun to examine that connection as well. Research has shown that over half of women using refuge services reported harm or threats to their pets as part of domestic abuse. In my constituency, Causeway Coast Dog Rescue has been leading the conversation, not just locally but across the UK, by highlighting the realities and calling for legislative change. Its work has given a voice to victims who have stayed silent out of fear of what would happen to their animals if they left without them. Ruby's law is about recognising that link and saying clearly that abuse in whatever form it takes will not be tolerated and that the justice system will respond to the full reality of coercive control. I urge the Executive, through the Minister of Justice, to bring forward the reform and to engage directly with those who have been campaigning for it. It is a practical and compassionate change that would make a real difference. Northern Ireland should protect the vulnerable in every sense of the word. If we bring in the law, our laws will reflect the realities behind closed doors.
492 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.03 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.62 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.35 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:21 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.