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

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .

MLA
Ms Paula Bradshaw
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 5448945

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Justice Minister. The Chair of the Justice Committee pointed to that when he said that nobody should be targeted because of who they are. That is the fundamental point, and I hope that the Justice Committee will consider all targeted groups as part of its scrutiny process. Another issue that has been raised, including in the Executive Office Committee's recent scrutiny, is the absence of age as a protected characteristic. We have been looking at gaps in equality legislation. We hope to pursue that and see some progress on it. It is important to recognise the developments that have taken place in that area since Judge Marrinan's review, in particular the vulnerability aggravator in the Adult Protection Bill, which may address many of the concerns relating to crimes against older people. It is important that we raise that in the context of this debate, but, we should, of course, also ensure that appropriate protections exist, while being mindful of not creating a duplication in law that could cause confusion rather than clarity. Clause 36 is also significant in that regard, as it provides for increased sentences where an offender:

"knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the victim was a vulnerable person."

The court must explain how that vulnerability has affected sentencing, provided that it is not already an element of the offence itself. Again, I feel that victims will appreciate that explanation forming part of the case proceedings as a way of acknowledging what they have gone through. Importantly, the Bill provides a clear definition of vulnerability, including that of children and individuals whose ability to protect themselves from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired. That approach also has a practical benefit, as it will enable the criminal justice system to more effectively record and track offences, including those against vulnerable victims; help to better identify patterns of offending; and ensure that resources are better targeted towards prevention and protection. Part 6 of the Bill represents an important development: it will strengthen sentencing, improve the responsiveness of our legal system and provide greater protection for those who are most at risk of being targeted by crime. For those reasons, it is important that the Bill is allowed to progress today. Progressing the Bill will demonstrate that these institutions can act decisively to strengthen protections, support vulnerable people and deliver a justice system that better reflects the values of fairness and equality that we all share. In closing, as a South Belfast representative, I acknowledge Peter and Niamh Dolan's loss of their precious son in my constituency. I think of that tragic event every time I pass the site. I sincerely hope that the provisions in the Bill that support the Dolans' campaign will give them some comfort today.

464 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: 0.05 (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 (0.92).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.67).
  • 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

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 framing0.06No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.92Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.67
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.32
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.95
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.04
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01
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