Debate contribution: Protecting Victims of Coercive Control

Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .

MLA
Ms Emma Sheerin
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
5 May 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Protecting Victims of Coercive Control
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5525288

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, particularly my colleagues who spoke so movingly and who were working on the issue before I became a member of the Committee. Coercive control is something that is pervasive throughout society, and we know that we need to see action on it. The unanimous support for the motion across the Chamber today is to be welcomed. We often talk in this place about how the North of Ireland is one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a woman. We know that 30 women have been murdered in the North since 2020. We also know that the most dangerous time for a woman who is in danger is when she tries to leave an abusive relationship. We know that most of victims of femicide — to whom we need to pay tribute far too frequently in this place — are killed at the hands of a man they know and oftentimes were in relationship with. To deal with that, we must deal properly with the systems and forums that facilitate abuse and fail to protect the victims of abuse. I welcome the commitments given by the Minister, and the way in which she has received the motion. As outlined in our motion, we know that a lot of it has been legislated for already, but the research tells us that there are gaps. We want to see those gaps being addressed, and we all have to work collaboratively to achieve that. The testimony of the victims of abuse tells us that the court procedures, particularly their experiences in the family courts, are driving women away from reporting their abuse because, instead of the perpetrator being on trial, the victims are on trial and are being judged. All too often in this country and across the world, victims of sustained domestic abuse are judged for staying in relationships and bringing harm on themselves or for letting their children live in dangerous scenarios, when the reality is that when they try to leave the situation, they are also judged for putting themselves and/or their children at risk. I will highlight the contribution from my colleagues to my left, particularly Aoife. She talked about the reality of victims' experiences in courtrooms, when they cannot think clearly and have to face their perpetrators. That should give us all cause for concern. There is a lack of awareness of the systems that should be there to protect the victims, and we must ensure that everyone who has the right to access those systems — the barriers, the screens or the waiver on legal aid — can do so, and that is key. In conclusion, I welcome the approach shown across the House today. I hope that we see action on this issue, so that no other victims turn into statistics.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.53
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.47
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification