Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- 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 5448921
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Sinn Féin supports the Sentencing Bill passing its Second Stage. We support the Bill, in principle, but we have reservations about specific elements of it, some of which have been touched on by other Members. We need to focus on deterrence of crime, which needs a holistic approach from across government, and we need to look properly at the causes of crime. Research tells us that, often, the risk or fear of being caught is as effective a tool in preventing crime as longer sentencing. That is something that needs to be considered and will be discussed as the Bill makes its way through its Committee Stage. As others have done, I welcome the changes that have been made regarding dangerous-driving offences, particularly on aggravators in cases of murder, which is particularly relevant for victims' families, some of whom were represented here earlier. We had concerns. I welcome the Minister's comments about wishing to include more hate crimes when introducing the regulations, which, she has stated, will not require legislation. I am glad to hear that, because there was a significant gap, particularly on sectarianism and having a proper definition of it. It is key that we consider that, particularly given the history of this country and the fact that sectarianism was used as a tool to divide people here. That is something that we need to be cognisant of. The other massive gap is in regard to hate crime specific to misogyny. We talk, and others have talked at length, about the epidemic here of violence against women and girls. Femicide rates here are higher than they are anywhere else in Europe. We know that women are not murdered without misogyny, so we need to tackle that properly. I note some of the comments that were made by the Chair of the Committee on non-criminal hate speech offences and hate crime offences. We have to consider all of that very carefully to maintain and protect free speech, but we also have to be cognisant of the fact that, as outlined by the Minister, people can commit multiple offences in the run-up to a murder, which, often, are displays of relevant hatred and discriminatory thoughts. It is important that we give that the Bill the consideration that it deserves. It is particularly important that we look at the causes of crime. They can include poverty and addiction, and the people involved can be on the outskirts of society and oftentimes require support, sympathy, empathy and compassion. We should prioritise providing those things rather than looking at addressing crime through the judicial system all the time. I welcome the opportunity to do that as the Bill makes its way through the process.
467 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: 0.07 (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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.74).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.26 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.74 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.94 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 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.