Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 27 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

27 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5508682

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I begin by placing on record that the Committee welcomes the engagement that it has had so far on the Bill with the Department of Justice. Our pre-legislative discussions began as early as March 2025, when the Minister of Justice gave evidence to the Committee and provided a brief outline of the Bill's intended remit. Departmental officials provided a more detailed breakdown of its content in November 2025. The Committee was advised that the intention behind the Bill was to build on work started as far back as 2016, when Claire Sugden initiated a review of sentencing provision during her tenure as Minister of Justice. The fact that the Bill has been at least 10 years in development demonstrates its complexity and the level of consideration that will be required at Committee Stage. Sentencing is not a straightforward area of legislation. I think that all Members will acknowledge that it is a complex, detailed and important aspect of law. Not only is it technical and complex, but the Bill deals with some sensitive issues that have a real-life impact on victims and their families. The Committee Stage of the Bill formally began on 18 March 2026, but, even before that, the Committee had begun to receive correspondence from members of the public about the Bill's content and, indeed, about what is not included. It is of clear importance to us all, and it is important that we get it right. The Bill deals with many different areas related to sentencing, and each one is significant in its own right. I will not go through each one in detail but will highlight some of the key provisions that the Committee will examine. Part 1 of the Bill sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing and seeks to improve awareness and understanding of how sentencing decisions are made. That is a vital element of the Bill. We have all heard about the lack of transparency and the apparent mystery that surrounds sentencing decisions, which has, on occasions, led to a public outcry. Measures that improve transparency and help the understanding of how sentencing decisions are reached are to be welcomed. It is the Committee's responsibility to make sure that the provisions are sufficient and meaningful and will achieve their stated aim. Part 2 relates to suspended sentences. They can be a key part of a bigger picture in trying to reduce reoffending and providing restorative justice and alternatives to custody. Suspended sentencing must balance the need for the punishment of offenders with the delivery of justice for victims, who remain paramount in the Committee's thoughts and considerations. It must also provide for rehabilitation and restorative or reparative justice to seek to prevent reoffending and to provide the offender with the ability to make amends for their crimes. The Bill also sets out the starting points for mandatory life tariffs, which can be adjusted by considering aggravating or mitigating factors. It also clarifies and expands the arrangements for referral of certain cases when sentences are considered to be too lenient. Again, I am sure that Members will have been approached by their constituents about those issues when they have felt that the sentence given to an offender has been wholly inadequate. The Bill also includes provisions to deal with sentencing where an offender has failed to disclose the location of a victim's remains or how a victim's remains were disposed of. We will all be fully aware of the horrific cases that have affected families in Northern Ireland. Those provisions are therefore hugely impactful, and the Committee needs to make sure that they are the best that can be delivered. Part 6 deals with aggravators to sentences for crimes committed against certain groups and includes race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and vulnerability, as well as introducing a new offence and new aggravators for attacks on public workers. We have already received representations questioning whether the right categories are included, whether the aggravators are sufficient or whether there is anything missing. Those are all questions that the Committee will wish to consider and that we will, no doubt, hear evidence about. Part 7 deals with road traffic offences and stiffer sentencing for causing death or serious injury through driving whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol, as well as careless driving or driving while distracted, and tougher sentencing for repeat offenders. I suspect that every Member in the Chamber will be familiar with the case of Enda Dolan, whose family has campaigned tirelessly on the issue and fought with such dignity and decorum on the need for greater deterrence in cases like his. There is then what is not in the Bill. The Committee has already had correspondence from several individuals and other stakeholders about issues relating to sentencing that, they feel, are missing from the Bill. New offences and additional aggravators are proposed that will require consideration by the Committee, including consideration of whether the Bill is the right vehicle to take those issues forward. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have tried to be brief, but, as you will recognise, it is not a simple or straightforward Bill. The Committee therefore needs the appropriate time to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose. The timing of the Bill's introduction means that the Committee Stage began just before Easter, and the Committee wasted no time in issuing its call for evidence. While an extension until 27 November may seem long, it must be remembered that it covers not only the Easter period but the summer and Halloween recess periods. We will start to take oral evidence in the coming weeks. I should point out, though, that our consideration of matters relating to the Justice Bill is ongoing, but we will do our best to manage the knock-on effect that that may have on our consideration of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill.

The Member raises a valid question and a real reason why we need the extension: so that we can give time to the victims, victims' groups and families who have suffered at the hands of perpetrators. The Assembly should give us that latitude in dealing with and scrutinising the Bill so that we afford victims the right to be heard by the Committee. The Committee recognises the importance of prioritising legislation and ensuring that it is scrutinised robustly. We also recognise that there is not a lot of time left in the mandate, so we have tried to balance what, we feel, is necessary and proportionate against that. If we can complete our scrutiny before 27 November, we will do so. Legislation like this must be fit for purpose. Legislation on some of the matters that the Bill covers has been a long time coming, and it is welcome that we now have it in front of us. We have to get it right so that victims and survivors, their families and all those involved can have greater confidence in the justice system. The Committee's aim is to conduct effective scrutiny to ensure that what is added to the statute book is clear and coherent and delivers for the public. That is especially important with a Bill such as the Sentencing Bill. I therefore trust that the Assembly will support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Sentencing Bill to 27 November and support the Committee for Justice in its scrutiny of the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.

1,243 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:32 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