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
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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.47 |
| 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.