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

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour 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 5448955

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the progress of the Bill and to the wider, vital conversations that this process has sparked on sentencing practices across the North. The sentences themselves often spark the conversations, but the Bill should focus them on solutions and improvements. I fully acknowledge that the judiciary is tasked with handling complex cases, weighing multiple factors when passing a sentence and doing so within what is often a challenging and tightly constrained legal framework. However, that should not prevent us from asking difficult questions about whether the system, as it stands, is delivering the justice that victims and communities deserve. At the heart of the Bill is a recognition that sentencing must do more than simply process and punish offenders. It must protect the public and hold their confidence. Crucially, it must act as a real deterrent. Too often when sentences are reported, particularly in the court pages across social media, the reaction from the public is, understandably, one of anger and disbelief, with many feeling that serious crimes have resulted in little more than a slap on the wrist. One area where that concern is most palpable in my experience is drug dealing, and I have raised the issue with the Minister previously. Across communities, in my constituency and beyond, families are living with the devastation caused by drugs. Drug dealers are not just criminals looking to make money; they are, frankly, death dealers. They poison communities, exploit vulnerability, fuel addiction, destroy lives and wreak devastation that filters through generations. Yet, far too often, when those responsible end up appearing before the courts, they receive suspended sentences, and, as we have seen increasingly over the years, some are even given anonymity orders and thus granted protection in the midst of their crimes. They return to the same streets and communities, they peddle the same poison and the cycle continues. The maximum sentence here for drug dealing is already 14 years. The law provides the courts with the power to impose serious penalties, but the reality is that such sentences are rarely, if ever, imposed. Perhaps it is time for us to examine whether there should be a higher minimum sentence for serious drug dealing.

I thank the Member for his intervention. There is all sorts of suspicion and speculation around the reason why punishment is not more severe in many cases, and more than eyebrows are raised at the apparent leniency of many of the sentences received. I am sure that that is across the whole range of offences, but I have certainly heard people make the suggestions that the Member referred to just now. I was making a point about minimum sentences. People maybe should consider that issue, not because we seek punishment for its own sake but because communities deserve protection and because the message must be clear that dealing drugs and destroying lives will carry serious consequences. In that context, I pay tribute to campaigner Pauline Duddy, a Derry mother who has turned unimaginable personal grief into determined — that may be an understatement — advocacy following the tragic death of her daughter Jasmin. Through her campaign for Jasmin's law, Pauline has highlighted the devastating human cost of drug dealing. I acknowledge the engagement that the Minister and others across the Chamber have had with Pauline over the past couple of years. Her campaign reminds us that behind every statistic, court case and line of legislation there are real families whose lives are shattered. Their voices very much deserve to be heard in the debate. The Bill addresses another area, which Members have touched on, in which many families have long felt that the justice system has failed them, and that is road deaths and serious injuries caused by dangerous or reckless driving. For families who lose a loved one in those circumstances, their grief is compounded by sentences that, it is fair to say, in nearly all cases do not reflect the gravity of the loss. When someone makes the choice to drive dangerously or to drive when under the influence of drink or drugs, they make a decision that puts every other road user at risk. Sadly, the consequence of that choice often ends up being tragic, but it is also entirely preventable. That is why stronger sentencing provisions in the Bill are not solely about punishment or time that reflects the crime. They are about real deterrence. They are about sending a clear message that such reckless behaviour will carry serious consequences. I commend, as other Members have, the work done by bereaved families to push for change. The Dolan family is here today. They tragically lost their son, Enda. In my constituency, I think of Martin Gallagher's family — Peter McReynolds mentioned them too — who have been tireless in their pursuit of justice, not just for Martin or for themselves, but for everyone. This is not just about calling for tougher sentences across the board. It is about ensuring that justice truly means justice: the chance to break the cycle of reoffending and to rebuild lives. Behind every court case is more than one story, and they often do not make the front pages but they matter just as much. Someone who needed help but got a sentence instead, perhaps. I think of the comments of Mr McGuigan, which I thought were excellent, on the link between addiction, crime and punishment. Justice must protect the public, but it must also protect the vulnerable. This is exactly the kind of sentencing reform that we need.

928 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