Debate contribution: Sentencing: Drug Dealing
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Sentencing: Drug Dealing
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5498038
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to speak to the very serious motion before us today. I thank the Opposition for bringing it to the House because I think that it will be a worthwhile debate. First, I pay tribute to Pauline Duddy, who has corresponded with me. I am yet to meet Pauline, but I promised her that I will meet her today, and I will fulfil that promise after the debate. We have to hear what Pauline Duddy has to say. She has done a tremendous amount of work. She has worked with my Foyle colleagues up in Londonderry on what is a very important issue for her. I can only imagine what it is like to lose a daughter, but for Pauline to use that grief and campaign tirelessly to make life better for other families whose loved ones could suffer the same fate as Jasmin is admirable, and it is something that the House needs to note. We should do that in the Assembly and in the Justice Committee when we are reviewing and scrutinising the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. I note that the Minister has launched the sentencing review. The Department did that on 14 January. I had a wry smile to myself when I saw that sentencing review because, while it is right to review sentencing and other laws, the Minister was, at that time, about to launch her Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. I always talk about piloting things to death, and, sometimes, we review things to death. I think that the review was a defensive manoeuvre to assure us that, "We are looking at it, and it will be in the next Bill", when, really, we should be considering it in this Bill. It is just one of those topics that the Department, the Committee and the Assembly should attest to, assess and scrutinise now, and it should be placed in the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill now.
Yes.
Yes. I thank the Minister for saying that. He would say that, and the Justice Minister would say that too if she were sitting here, but the truth is this: people die on our streets because of drug use and death dealers, who peddle death, peddle drugs and peddle substances that they even make worse chemically , and prey on our young people and our most vulnerable. That is unforgivable, so something needs to be done. We always hear, in political circles, about being tough on crime. I do not necessarily like that phrase because I think that we should be smarter on crime. Sometimes, being smarter on crime means being tougher on crime, and sometimes it just means being smarter. I think that that is one area where we should get smarter. That is where aggravation comes into it. We should be able to allow and arm our judiciary to consider aggravating factors so that people who need to go to prison can go to prison for longer. I support the motion and, in the interests of keeping things collective, support the amendment.
508 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: 0.04 (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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.81 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:26 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.