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

Not flagged

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.10No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.05No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.26
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.74
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.94
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.05
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification