Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Aoife Finnegan on .
- MLA
- Ms Aoife Finnegan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5448469
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Sinn Féin welcomes the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and the opportunity to debate it today at its Second Stage. Sentencing policy is something that communities across our society feel very strongly about. Too often, the public see serious offenders receiving sentences that appear to fall short of reflecting the harm caused to victims and families. When that happens, confidence in our justice system is damaged. Therefore, it is important that we examine the proposals in the Bill carefully and ensure that sentencing policy prioritises public protection, justice for victims and accountability for those who commit serious crimes. Today, I will focus on two particularly important areas in the Bill: Charlotte's law and the proposals around tariff setting for murder cases, especially in the context of violence against women and girls. First, on Charlotte's law, for families whose loved ones have been murdered but whose remains have never been recovered, the suffering is unimaginable. The pain of loss is compounded by the cruelty of not knowing where their loved ones lie. We pay tribute to the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian, who have campaigned with enormous courage and dignity to ensure that the issue cannot be ignored. The Bill represents an important step forward. Offenders who refuse to disclose the location of a victim's remains prolong the suffering of families, and it is right that the justice system recognises that. As the legislation progresses, we must ensure that it is robust, legally sound and capable of delivering the justice and truth that families deserve. Secondly, I will address the tariff settings for murder cases, particularly in the light of the ongoing crisis around violence against women and girls. Over the past month, we have heard harrowing details in the trials relating to the murders of Natalie McNally and Chloe Mitchell, and, just days ago, we learned of the tragic killing of Ellie Flanagan, a young woman whose life was taken far too soon. Since 2020, some 29 women have been murdered in the North, the majority of whom were killed or attacked in their own homes. Those are not isolated tragedies. They present a deeply troubling pattern of violence against women and girls. That is why it is right that violence against women and girls is recognised as an Executive priority and why sentencing policy must reflect the seriousness of those crimes. The proposals in the Bill to increase starting tariffs for murder cases are therefore welcome, recognising that the most serious crimes must carry consequences that reflect the devastation that is caused to families and communities. Legislation alone, however, will not end the crisis. We must also understand and challenge the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence against women and girls to persist. We must ensure that victims are supported while perpetrators are held fully accountable. Sinn Féin will support the Bill's progress to Committee Stage. We will continue to scrutinise its provisions carefully to ensure that it strengthens our justice system, delivers for victims and sends a clear message that violence, particularly against women and girls, will not be tolerated.
514 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: 0.05 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.64 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.