Debate contribution: Protecting Victims of Coercive Control

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 5 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

5 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Protecting Victims of Coercive Control

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5525180

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The motion asks the House to recognise the deep and lasting trauma caused by coercive control and to ensure that victims are protected in our justice system. Those are aims that every Member should be able to support in any normal society, but, when I look at the names attached to the motion and see three Members of Sinn Féin, it exposes and lays bare their hypocrisy and underscores the need for the amendment to be tabled and supported. There is no more of a sobering example of that reality in Northern Ireland than the case of Máiría Cahill. In that case, a young girl was subject to serious sexual abuse, including rape. Instead of being directed immediately to the police, she was drawn into an IRA kangaroo court. Shamefully, she was required to confront her alleged abuser. We heard Ms Finnegan take aim at a situation in which a victim is in the same court as their abuser, but what about Máiría Cahill, who was subject to an off-the-books IRA kangaroo court? I agree that no victim should ever be placed in the position of having to confront their abuser. When the matter finally reached the formal justice system, Máiría Cahill's case collapsed, not because the truth had been tested and rejected but because the victim withdrew. Why did that happen? This is not a matter of speculation. We have the findings of an independent review that was conducted by our now Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.

He found that the three complainants were badly let down by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and by counsel, that the time taken to reach decisions was too long and that delays were unacceptable. Most damning of all, he concluded that it was almost inevitable that the complainants would lose confidence in the process. It was the predictable outcome from a system that failed to act with urgency, clarity and care. It did not end there. The Police Ombudsman also found there to be serious failings.

We cannot, however, discuss that case honestly without looking at what happened in Sinn Féin. Not only were senior republicans, including Martin McGuinness and Gerry "I do not remember" Adams, aware of the allegations long before they were reported to the police but IRA men were conducting elements of a quasi-judicial process in Sinn Féin offices. In her book, Máiría recounts how, while in the office of Gerry Adams, she was asked whether she wanted a man shot. When she made it clear that that was unacceptable and that she instead wanted to go through the justice system, a litany of barriers was erected in her path. Rather than being supported, she was undermined at every turn. That issue should concern the House. The research pack that was produced in advance of the debate makes it clear that victims often do not come forward out of fear of not being believed. It goes further. It tells us that cases that involve sexual offences take longest to conclude, with a median completion time of 630 days. It states plainly that delays of that nature can lead to a high attrition rate of victims withdrawing from their case. Let me be clear about what that means. It means that victims come forward and are then worn down. They wait, relive, endure and eventually walk away, because the delay in the delivery of justice has become unbearable. The motion rightly recognises that coercive control can be exercised through the courts and that perpetrators may exploit proceedings in order to re-traumatise victims. Although that is true, it is not the whole truth. The Máiría Cahill case reveals something more troubling still, which is that the problem does not always begin in the courtroom but can begin long before then. It can begin with the processes that a victim is drawn into, with the structures that surround them, with the failures of institutions and with the responses of those in positions of authority. The amendment matters, because the motion focuses heavily on family court proceedings. The Máiría Cahill case — her lived experience, if you like — tells us that the problem is wider than that. It spans policing, prosecution and the entire justice pathway. It spans those who are in politics and the nexus that there is between them and an illegal terrorist organisation, which, by the Government's most recent assessment, still retains weapons, still retains departments and still provides oversight for Sinn Féin. If we are to protect victims, we must do so not in part but in full. Victims do not deserve to have people in high political office, such as the First Minister, questioning their truthfulness. One of the barriers that victims face is the fear that they will not be believed. Michelle O'Neill was asked directly whether she believed Máiría Cahill, and declined, repeatedly, to give a clear answer before conceding that she does believe her now. It is a scandal that the House has a strategy on violence against women and girls that is headed by someone with such a record on the issue. The amendment gives Sinn Féin a chance to right a wrong and state clearly and unequivocally that they believe Máiría. I commend my amendment to the House and trust that everyone in the House will support it tonight.

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

Assessment

Flagged Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.