Debate contribution: Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 8 December 2025.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

8 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5284933

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The SDLP has tabled the motion in recognition of the widespread public support for the introduction of Caoimhe's law; in fact, Caoimhe's parents, Marie and Noel, are with us today in the Public Gallery, along with other people and relations who have faced similar trauma as a result of the recklessness of others. The support for legislation on the issue is a result of growing concern at the increasing trend of individuals and media outlets capturing and distributing online distressing footage of fatal or critical road traffic collisions with no thought for the families affected. Usually, the person who initially takes the images or videos has no connection to the victim or their family. The scene is simply something that they witnessed, and they want to record it as if they were at a music gig or a festival. The legislation that we want to see implemented would:

"make it a criminal offence to record or share images and videos of victims at the scene of a fatal or critical traffic collision without lawful authority or family consent".

Our motion calls on the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Infrastructure to work together to deliver legislation by the end of the mandate. Caoimhe O'Brien was a young woman who died in a road traffic collision on the A5 between Derry and Strabane in October 2016. News of her death was broadcast on social media before some of her relatives could even be informed of the tragedy. Caoimhe's law is named in her honour and in recognition of the additional trauma caused to her family by the online content about the accident and her death. I thank and pay tribute to Caoimhe's mother, Marie, and the members of Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal for their tireless campaign to raise awareness of the pain and hurt that has been caused to families and friends of victims of road traffic accidents (RTAs) by the thoughtless actions of strangers — strangers who, for whatever reason, chose to record the often gruesome scenes of accidents and publish the recordings online, compounding the pain, grief and loss of the victims' families. We want the Assembly to say loudly and clearly to those people, "It is not your story to tell". A number of councils have called on the Assembly and Executive to legislate. In my constituency of Mid Ulster, SDLP councillors, one of whom is here today, Councillor Malachy Quinn, secured unanimous support for their motion, which called for legal restrictions on the sharing on social media of images and videos taken at the scene of serious traffic collisions. Motions in support of the introduction of Caoimhe's law have also been passed by Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council. Those motions also had cross-party support, reflecting the public desire to see action being taken. We hope that all parties in the Assembly will support our motion today. We recognise how difficult it is to control the spread of images and videos once they have been published online. The reluctance of social media companies to accept their role as publishers and the legal restrictions that that brings has resulted in a hands-off approach to content moderation by those giants of modern technology. That approach allows them to continue to make massive profits through the sale of their users' personal data while abdicating responsibility for any pain and hurt caused by the online activities that they facilitate. Shutting down individual accounts often fails to prevent the spread of the hurtful content. The ease with which new accounts can be created can result in lengthy and costly battles with social media companies and with the offenders themselves. That is why it is particularly important to place primary responsibility with the person who chooses to take and share the image or video of the scene. That is not to say that the media companies and other individuals would be immune from the legislation, but making the act of taking the image a criminal offence would send a clear signal that we, as a society, do not accept that activity. In the North, it is not a crime to film or share footage of victims of fatal crashes, and it should be. It is an affront to the dignity of the victims in their final moments. It is a violation of their privacy. Recording those moments and publishing them online creates a painful, often permanent, reminder to families and friends of those final moments. We are not alone in trying to combat the voyeuristic impulses of some people at the scene of an accident. Some countries continue to rely on outdated legislation that fails to take account of modern technology and the speed at which that content can be replicated and shared across social media. Other countries are looking at specific ways in which to address the issue. In Spain, for example, constitutional privacy protections extend to the families of the deceased; sharing images of dead or injured people without consent can lead to criminal and civil penalties; and, importantly, families can sue for the emotional harm caused by the publishing of those images.

Absolutely, and my sympathies are with you, Linda. To be told in such a way — by proxy on social media — must be awful. It is gruesome. It shows no empathy, sympathy or understanding; no reaching out to the other human being or thinking, "This is the wrong way to do things". I do not understand why anyone would even attempt to do that, but, unfortunately, they do. As I said, the most effective way to prevent it is by influencing the actions of people at the scene, because, once the images and videos are online, it is increasingly difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. A few countries have taken the initiative to put in place robust legislation that, we believe, shows the way forward. In Germany, for example, it is a criminal offence to take or share images that violate a person's highly personal sphere of life, including injured or deceased victims. German police can seize phones at the scene if they suspect that illegal recording has taken place, and German courts have upheld convictions for photographing crash victims even when the images were not shared. It is important that any legislation or proposal for legislation be done in a coordinated manner and on an all-Ireland basis. Every day, there is a lot of movement of traffic across the border, and the legislation to stop those practices should not just be in one jurisdiction but be comprehensive and all-embracing. New Zealand has the wide-ranging Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, which makes it an offence to share images that would cause "serious emotional distress". New Zealand police can order the immediate removal of images that have been posted online. Significantly, so-called bystander filming can be prosecuted if it breaches privacy or causes distress. In comparison, the only crime that someone can be arrested for here is obstruction of emergency services at the scene. Caoimhe's law would change that. This is not about censorship; it is about compassion, respect and dignity. Families should not find out through a video on social media that their loved one has been killed or injured, nor should they have to relive those moments every time they unexpectedly come across a video of the scene. It is cruel, traumatising and unacceptable. The legislation is urgent, proportionate and widely supported. That is why we call on the Executive to act without delay to introduce the necessary legislation by the end of the mandate. Caoimhe's law will put compassion, respect and dignity first.

1,291 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:11 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