Debate contribution: Protecting Victims of Coercive Control
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 5 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Protecting Victims of Coercive Control
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5525238
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I want to begin by acknowledging a letter that I received from a constituent of mine, a mother from West Belfast. She wrote to me about her daughter Michelle Downey. I knew Michelle, having come across her in the Occupy Belfast campaign many years ago. Michelle died by suicide in September 2017 after years of sustained coercive control and domestic abuse, and I want to remember her today. An inquest that concluded in 2024 found that the cumulative weight of Michelle's experiences — the abuse and control that she went through — rendered her a particularly vulnerable woman and contributed directly to her death. She did not want to die; she wanted to live free from abuse, and the Assembly and the Executive owe it to Michelle and to every other woman in a position like hers to act. Nearly 31,000 domestic abuse incidents were recorded by the police in the North last year. We know that that figure vastly understates the reality. Most domestic abuse is never reported at all. That is for many reasons, including that a growing number of people have no faith in the PSNI, never mind the justice system more generally. Coercive control is at the heart of so many of those cases. It is a slow, calculated campaign to strip a person of their autonomy and their sense of self. The 2021 Act was a step forward by the Minister, but it does not go far enough. Years on, key protections remain only partially implemented. Victims are still facing complex evidential requirements and restrictive legal aid eligibility that effectively prices them out of justice. I think that just 14 legal aid eligibility waivers were issued under that legislation in the first year. The courtroom itself can become another arena of abuse, as Members have said. Campaigners against gender-based violence rightly say that the "shame must change sides". Victims should never face cross-examination from their abuser. They should never be interrogated about their sexual history, and I am quite shocked that that still happens. Defence teams should not have access to private counselling notes, and perpetrators should not be allowed to submit character references while their victims are dragged through re-traumatisation. That amounts to a continuation of abuse, this time in the courtroom instead of the home. We also need to urgently implement the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act 2022 so that women who are experiencing abuse can take time away from work without fear of losing their livelihood or being financially penalised. As Members have said, leaving an abuser is not simple. It takes time, resources and support, and it usually is the most dangerous time for women. That brings me to funding. Organisations such as Women's Aid are chronically and shamefully underfunded. They are holding the line every day for women in crisis, and they are doing it all on a shoestring. The Executive must urgently provide reliable, long-term investment in women's shelters and community-based support services, not short-term pots of money that disappear mid-year and force people to fight or fundraise for it. Those life-saving services need sustained investment that reflects the scale of what those organisations are dealing with, which is a growth in violence against women. Michelle Downey deserved better, and the tens of thousands of women navigating coercive control in the North as we speak deserve better. The Minister must commence all outstanding protections under the 2021 Act without further delay, and the Executive must match every piece of legislation with the funding and cultural change needed to make it meaningful. On the amendment, with no equivocation, Máiría Cahill absolutely deserves justice and was totally failed by the cover-up after the abuse that happened to her. For the most part, though, recent unionist leadership does not have a great track record when it comes to coercive control or familial abuse.
649 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: 0.17 (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 (0.95).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.60).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.35 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.34 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.68 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.32 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.