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

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

Date

16 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5448949

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Sentencing is one of those issues that people feel strongly about. When a crime is committed and harm is caused, particularly where there has been a death or serious harm, one of the first questions that people ask is whether the sentence truly reflects what has happened to the victim and the victim's family. Often, that is what people mean when they say that they want justice for those who have been hurt by the crimes of others. When I was Minister of Justice, I spent a lot of time thinking about sentencing and how it works in practice. Sentencing serves several purposes: it is punishment; it is intended to act as a deterrent; and it should provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. Ultimately, however, the sentence imposed by the court should reflect the seriousness of the crime that has been committed and the harm that has been caused. Sentencing cannot be looked at in isolation. Judges are not simply picking a number; they are working with a sentencing framework that has been set in law and shaped by case law over many years. When we, as legislators, look at sentencing, what we are really doing is adjusting that framework rather than deciding what the sentence should be in any individual case, and that is not always easy to explain. Often, we hear that the maximum sentence for a particular offence is a certain number of years, but, then, we see a significantly lower sentence imposed. People do not always see the process behind that decision. The court begins with a starting point; considers aggravating and mitigating factors; applies reductions where appropriate; and, ultimately, arrives at the final sentence. For many victims and families, that process can be difficult to understand, particularly when they are dealing with the loss that has been suffered and simply want justice for their loved one. That is why the framework that we set as part of the Bill matters. If the starting point is not high enough, the final sentence, even after adjustments, can appear and feel insufficient.

That was one of the reasons why I initiated the review of sentencing policy in Northern Ireland in 2016. At that time, there had not been a comprehensive examination of sentencing policy for many years. Concerns were being raised by victims' families, by legal practitioners and by the public more generally about whether the system was delivering outcomes that truly reflected the seriousness of certain offences.

The review was also influenced by individual cases that deeply resonated with people, and one of those was the death of Enda Dolan and the campaigning of his father, Peter Dolan. In that case, a young life was lost because someone made the choice to engage in dangerous and illegal behaviour on the road. The consequences of that decision were devastating and irreversible, and that is what made the sentence that was imposed in that case so difficult to understand. The sentencing review could never change what happened to Enda Dolan or undo the devastating loss experienced by his family, but it sought to ensure that, where such crimes occur, families are not left feeling that the justice system has failed to hold people properly accountable for their actions. Peter Dolan and his family have shown enormous courage in continuing to campaign on this issue while carrying their own loss. Their determination helped to bring about a wider examination of sentencing in Northern Ireland, and it is only right that their contribution is recognised. The Bill reflects some of that work, and I welcome that. It also includes provisions to deal with a situation where offenders refuse to disclose the location of victims' remains, and, in Northern Ireland, that issue is painfully associated with the case of Lisa Dorrian. For families who are left without answers in those circumstances, the impact is profound and enduring. Lisa's family have lived with that pain for many years. The refusal to disclose the location of a victim's remains prolongs the suffering of families in a way that is difficult to comprehend. While the justice system cannot undo that harm, it can recognise the additional cruelty involved when offenders choose to withhold information. I know how hard Lisa's family have worked on this issue over many years, and it is right that their determination is also recognised in how measures are now being introduced. The Bill also creates a specific offence of assaulting a public worker, and I very much welcome that. Too many people who provide services to the public experience abuse of violence simply for doing their job. Healthcare workers, transport staff, retail workers and many others can find themselves on the receiving end of behaviour that should never be considered acceptable. Public workers should be able to do their jobs without facing intimidation or violence, and it is right that the law reflects the seriousness of that conduct. Taken together, the provisions in the Bill represent a meaningful attempt to respond to concerns that have been raised over many years about aspects of the justice system and the way that sentencing operates. It is important to acknowledge that it has taken a long time to reach this point. The review of sentencing policy began a decade ago, and reform in this area should not take that long. The reality is that political instability has slowed progress on many issues across government, including this one. Nevertheless, it is positive to see these reforms now coming forward. Sentencing is too important an issue to ignore. The framework must continue to evolve to ensure that it reflects the seriousness of offences and maintains public confidence in the justice system. For those reasons, I am supporting the Bill through its Second Stage.

956 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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