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

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour 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 5448442

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The SDLP welcomes the Second Stage debate on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. As has already been set out, its provisions are important and overdue. The review of issues to do with sentencing policy that the Bill covers was announced 10 years ago, and proposals for a sentencing guidelines mechanism were announced four years before that, in 2012. As always, it is important to take the right approach to addressing the issues. The time, however, that has been taken to introduce a new legislative framework and a new and effective sentencing guidelines mechanism cannot be considered to be helpful for securing public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is for the parties responsible for causing the delays in the legislation's introduction to reflect on the impact of their decisions. We in the SDLP have proposed modest reforms that would prevent a repeat of such lengthy delays with important legislation in future by allowing the Assembly to continue to sit and to scrutinise drafted legislation in circumstances in which a single party chooses to collapse the Executive. The Bill is important. It includes a number of provisions on the exercising of the court's discretion when sentencing, the availability and effect of suspended sentence orders, the determination of tariffs where a court is required to pass a life sentence and a review of certain sentences. It also increases penalties and disqualification periods for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. As the Minister and the Committee Chair have already said, we have the parents of Enda Dolan in the Public Gallery. Enda was an 18-year-old student from Killyclogher in County Tyrone who had been studying architecture at Queen's University. On 15 October 2014, on the Malone Road in south Belfast, a van driver who had taken drink and drugs mounted the pavement and struck Enda. Enda was thrown on to the roof of the van. The driver continued driving before eventually stopping. Enda died from his injuries at the scene. The driver pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and related offences. He was initially sentenced to seven years in prison, with the sentence later being increased on appeal. Enda's family launched the Run for Enda campaign and have, for many years, advocated for tougher sentences for drink- and drug-driving that causes death. As I said, Peter and Niamh, Enda's parents, are with us in the Public Gallery. They will no doubt be keeping a close watch on what happens here today and, indeed, at the Justice Committee as it scrutinises the Bill to ensure, as the Chair committed to earlier, that there is effective delivery for those people who have already suffered loss, hurt and injury as a consequence of what has happened to them in their lives. The Bill's provisions are all important and very welcome changes. In particular, I welcome the introduction of provisions for Charlotte's law. We acknowledge the Murray and Dorrian families at this time. We are also reminded of the pain suffered and injustice felt by the families of those who were disappeared by the Provisional IRA, some of whom have waited over 40 years for the return of the body of their loved one. In November 2021, the Justice Minister announced proposals on Charlotte's law in the Chamber, but they have been delayed by the actions of the parties who sit in the Executive Office. I hope that there are not similar delays in introducing the legislation that is required for Caoimhe's law. Given the raised expectations of victims' families, it is important that the preparations be made and the resources put in place so that the Bill's provisions can deliver real impact from day 1. My party also welcomes the changes to the procedure for addressing unduly lenient sentences. Simplifying and expanding the arrangements is a step in the right direction to improving public confidence in the justice system. It is, however, outcomes that will ultimately play a greater role in improving public confidence, and they will need to be monitored very carefully. The Bill also creates an offence of assaulting a public worker, extending the existing offences of assault on police, fire and rescue officers and ambulance workers to cover all public workers who:

"provide a service to the public"

or "perform a public duty". I think that I was one of the members who raised at Committee the issue of what that definition might be. The Chair already mentioned that issue. There is some concern that the widespread extension of that offence could undermine the original intention to protect emergency workers, who are already covered. I also highlight our concern about the provisions for a statutory aggravator model for hate crime. It was supposed to reflect the recommendations from Judge Marrinan's review of the way in which the justice system deals with criminal conduct motivated by hate, malice, ill will or prejudice. While the proposed mechanism itself may allow for that, we are concerned about the Minister's apparent minimalist approach to protected groups or characteristics. We do not believe that it reflects the ambition or the progressive nature of Judge Marrinan's recommendations.

Yes.

I thank the Minister for that. Equally, I trust and hope that the level of commitment to engaging with and delivering such legislation will not be hindered by anything in or outwith the Chamber, as has been the case up to now. I am sure that, within the past hour, the Minister and other Members received the email from the Commissioner for Older People expressing disappointment that crimes against older people have not been included in the Bill. Hopefully, that will be a matter for consideration by the Minister when it comes to the secondary legislation that she suggested. We had been told that the Bill was about introducing the statutory aggravator model, starting with the four existing protected groups, and that the second provision was there to introduce the additional protected groups at a later date. One of the departmental officials who attended the Justice Committee meeting on 27 November last year stated:

"It is about getting the statutory aggravator model on the statute books to start with and starting with the four protected groups and then seeking a power to introduce additional protected groups through secondary legislation at a later stage".

That is consistent with what the Minister outlined. However, we were recently informed that the Minister sought agreement from her Executive colleagues in November 2025 to introduce and include transgender identity as a protected group in the Bill. It was the Executive's inability to agree to that measure that meant that transgender identity as a protected group was removed from the Bill. That lack of consistency in the approach to protected groups was compounded by the argument from the departmental official at the Justice Committee in November 2025 that officials had already looked at sex as a potential protected group but decided that incidents where:

"aggravation was purely motivated by hate for somebody because of their gender was not as prevalent or as obvious to us as perhaps we might have thought when we started that work."

That is a direct quote from one of the officials who attended that meeting and presented evidence. Perhaps they were not looking carefully enough, or perhaps they need to widen the scope of what they are looking at or to liaise more with the police and community and voluntary groups to establish the extent and nature of that particular crime, as I suggest that it is.

Yes.

1,252 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