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

Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Connie Egan

Party at the time

Alliance 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 5448471

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to give some initial reflections on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill at Second Stage on behalf of the Alliance Party. As the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states, the Bill:

"will make provision in relation to the policy issues arising from the Department's Sentencing Policy Review",

which commenced public consultation in 2019, with additional constituent parts covering:

"offenders who fail to disclose information about victims’ remains; and a statutory aggravator model for hate crime offences."

I thank Minister Long and her departmental officials for their diligent work in bringing forward this important and particularly complex legislation, which will make sentencing more consistent and transparent for all across Northern Ireland. The practice of sentencing, including what those sentences are and their time frames, has been the basis of much public discussion over the past few years. I commend the Bill as a vehicle to address issues that have arisen. It is particularly welcome that it comes in tandem with the newly announced sentencing review, while further initial scoping is projected to go out for public consultation next year. The practice of sentencing by our judiciary is beyond important in our criminal legal system. It benchmarks crimes that are committed, and it is a public statement on what the consequences for each offence should be. It sends a message about what the public and our society as a whole stand for. Naturally, and as, I believe, the Bill achieves, the needs of victims and families, public sentiment and rehabilitation should be placed at the centre of how we determine sentences. As a member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the Minister's open communication with us on the Bill, including pre-introductory and post-introductory briefings from departmental officials. I will take each Part of the Bill in turn, with a particular focus on the sections that refer to unduly lenient sentences and the aggravation attached to the failure to disclose information about victims' remains. Part 1 provides for the first time in Northern Ireland a clear statement in statute of the purposes and principles of the sentencing of adult offenders. The Alliance Party welcomes that, alongside the provisions that legally compel courts to have regard for relevant sentencing guidance when determining outcomes for offenders. Consistency in sentencing is paramount in ensuring public confidence in our criminal justice system and laying a clear foundation of purposes and principles. It provides transparency for all those who engage with it. The predictability of sentencing, where possible, is important. Part 2 deals with the creation of new suspended sentence orders for adult offenders, which can specify one or more community requirements. Part 3 places a duty on the court, when passing a life sentence, to state in open court the reasons for deciding such a sentence and to explain to the offender the effect of it. Parts 2 and 3 interlink with an important stage in the offender's journey, and I welcome their utility in supporting the understanding of consequences and pathways to rehabilitation and, in some cases, in lowering the risk of reoffending. Part 4 focuses on unduly lenient sentences. It simplifies and consolidates existing legislation to provide that, where the Director of Public Prosecutions determines that a sentence handed down by the Crown Court is unduly lenient, it can be referred to the Court of Appeal. The Alliance Party welcomes that move to bring consistency to the existing scheme and recognises that it aims to provide assurances to victims and their families who do not see prosecution outcomes and punishments as proportionate to the traumatising crime that has been committed. I see the benefit of that, providing clear space for review when there are concerns for public safety, particularly when the offences prosecuted include sexual violence or paedophilia, for example. The tidying up and clarity brought by this legislation provides a path to secure justice when justice in the first instance may have been questioned. Queries have been raised to and by the Justice Committee about why that has not, from the outset, included summary trial offences in the Magistrates' Court, but I put it on record that the legislation does put in place regulation-making powers for the Department to expand that to specific offences that are prosecuted through the Magistrates' Court at a later date, once more policy development has been completed. Part 5 of the Bill is very welcome and deals with the failure to disclose information about the remains of victims. That follows an incredibly brave and determined campaign by the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian. I know that they are here today, and we must pay tribute to them. I understand that they welcome these provisions today. What those families have endured is unimaginable, and I hope that this legislative step recognises their trauma and pain. These provisions will create an additional custodial period for a person who has been convicted of murder or manslaughter, where the court believes that they have information about where or how the victim's remains are disposed of but the person involved does not disclose that information. This legislation means that, for not disclosing where a victim's remains are, perpetrators will receive an additional custodial period that will not be less than 30% of the initial notional custodial period or sentence. That is welcome and incredibly important for victims' families and loved ones in their journey with trying to come to terms with a terribly traumatic loss that has happened in their life. The legislation is unique and gives a formulaic provision for how this can be dealt with if a disclosure is made post-sentencing. I welcome the fact that that accompanies the implementation of legislation similar to Helen's law, which places a duty on parole commissioners to consider information relating to the prisoner's non-disclosure when they are making decisions relating to the prisoner as a matter of public protection. Alliance's reflections on Parts 6 and 7 of the Bill, which are on statutory aggravation and the increase of penalties in relation to road traffic offences, where death and serious injury is caused, will be covered in more detail by my party colleagues. The provisions are welcome, and I am extremely grateful to Enda Dolan's family, who are here today. They have been campaigning for this for years. To finish, I note the EFM's reference to the Bill's financial effects, which are primarily seen as deliverable within existing resources. In a particularly challenging financial environment for our Executive, I am encouraged by that. The cost implications for the Probation Board of the introduction of community requirements as an option for inclusion in suspended sentences are of note, but I welcome the Department's commitment to a costing exercise pre implementation to ensure that it is doable. I can see the Bill's provisions playing a real role in our Executive's joint ambition for safer communities, as noted in our Programme for Government. I look forward to working with my fellow members of the Justice Committee on the scrutiny of the Bill and engaging with the Minister, her Department and a vast array of stakeholders on its contents during our call for evidence. As already noted, sentencing plays a vital role in the functioning of any healthy democratic society. Public opinion over time shifts and changes, so our sentencing practice must, in turn, match that pace. This Bill is a welcome step forward.

1,231 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:11 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