Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5448418

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for that intervention; it was very helpful. One issue that comes to mind — there has already been interest in this from MLAs — is that of Harper's law. Whilst the Minister is right to talk about the gestation of the Bill and how long it has taken to get to this point, Harper's law has been about for a good number of years. Having met departmental officials, I know that they have been grappling with that issue for a number of years. That is just one example: a lot of MLAs ask me why Harper's law is not in the Bill but is in the sentencing review that the Department is conducting. That is just one important issue that springs to mind. I will move through the Bill. Part 2 is on suspended sentences. It is important that we do justice in a cleverer way. We should have smarter justice, and we should strive for smarter justice at every opportunity that we get. I understand the point about short custodial sentences: when people are thrown into prison for short periods, you do not really get time to rehabilitate them. They serve their time in there, and then they get pushed out into society again. That can sometimes be a brutal instrument, albeit it is justice. We should consider how that works and operates in practice and whether we best serve the public through short custodial sentences. Part 2 refers to suspended sentence orders. For serious offences, it states:

"the court may make a suspended sentence order in relation to the sentence if the term of the sentence is not more than 7 years."

A court can give a suspended sentence order if the sentence is between five and seven years. A custodial sentence of between five and seven years can be given for really serious crimes. A person could be put in prison for five years or seven years for really serious issues, so there will be a concern that people may receive a suspended sentence order who should really spend time in prison not only for their rehabilitation but for the safety of the victims and potential victims. It is really important that that be looked at and scrutinised appropriately. We have seen that unduly lenient sentences have been given in GB for some of the most horrific sexual crimes and even technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences. We should consider who can avail themselves of a suspended sentence order, the availability of those orders and whether there are some crimes that such an order just is not compatible with. We need to be careful there. Part 2 also mentions pre-sentencing reports. Such reports will be really important in informing the court of issues before sentencing takes place. There are times when addiction, not least gambling addiction, plays its part in crime. The all-party group (APG) on reducing harm related to gambling is exercised on the issue, and I believe that the chair of that APG will speak later. It is important that things are included in a pre-sentencing report that not only assist the court in coming to a conclusion about the sentencing that it should hand down to someone but inform it about how someone can be rehabilitated. Surely a massive part of why we have justice in the first place is to ensure that we do not create further victims by not rehabilitating those who could and should be rehabilitated. There are some really big issues in Part 2. We go from suspended sentences to mandatory life sentences in Part 3. That will be an important piece too. Part 4 deals with unduly lenient sentencing. Again, that is a massive issue. Politicians sometimes step into that area when they believe that an unduly lenient sentence has been given in a case. There has been and continues to be a process there. One of the fundamental questions that come up about Part 4 — my Justice Committee colleague Doug Beattie has raised it — is why it applies only to Crown Court cases. Why does it not apply to Magistrates' Court cases? There can be an array of issues with regard to unduly lenient sentences, but, surely, if there is an issue at the Crown Court, that will be replicated at the Magistrates' Court. Whilst it may be a process issue, there is a problem there. A question should be posed about unduly lenient sentencing in the Magistrates' Court, which deals with some really important, serious crimes. We should pose that question. Part 5 is:

"Failure to disclose information about victim's remains".

That goes to the heart of the cases involving victims such as Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian and their families and, of course, Charlotte's law and Helen's law. There has been a lot of sympathy, even in the House, for the way in which victims have been treated over the years, so it is good to see those measures in the Bill. We look forward to scrutinising them to ensure that they are the best that they can be, that victims are supported and that families can get closure on a lot of those issues. There are some groundbreaking and new issues in Part 6, which relates to hate crime. I am glad to say that the Minister is now going for an aggravator model as opposed to potential new crimes around hate crime. I welcome that, because I am one of the MLAs who have been nervous and worried about hate crime legislation and how it is playing out in GB with regard to some of the sentencing that is being imposed, especially for incidents in the world of social media. It is an important area. Of course, no one should be attacked because of who they are, what community they belong to, what religious group they are from or how they live their life. No one should be attacked or made a victim because of any of those factors. We should look at that, but I am glad that the Minister has gone down the road of an aggravator. That makes one fundamental difference: it will be the court, not the police officer who first arrests or questions someone, that will decide the aggravation. For me, that brings a bit of comfort and confidence on Part 6. One thing that worries me relates to the recording or non-recording of non-crime hate incidents. That is a massive issue, because no crime may have been committed, but people will have their details taken, and, somewhere in the future, details of some aspect of that person's life can be disclosed. That could have a detrimental impact on their life. If I can get some certainty regarding the recording of non-crime hate incidents —.

Yes.

1,132 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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