Member's statement: Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
Member's statement by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 June 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5583917
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On Thursday of last week, I was made aware that the Children's Commissioner, Mr Chris Quinn, had endorsed the position where no young person under 16 should be prosecuted for serious crimes such as rape, murder or sexual assault. I offer full credit to David Thompson, the 'News Letter' journalist, for highlighting that position in the first place. There is a disturbing context to this. Recently, in Hampshire, two girls aged 15 and 14 were raped in separate incidents by two 14-year-old boys, and another boy aged 13 was convicted for the attack. Members may have noted in the media coverage that none of the boys was given a custodial sentence in the initial sentencing. Thankfully, the Attorney General is reviewing that case. Had those rapes occurred in Northern Ireland, and had we adopted the Children's Commissioner's position — some parties here endorse it, while others are not far from that — those young girls would have had no access to justice, which, for me, it is simply unacceptable. I want to be clear that every child deserves protection, support and the opportunity to turn to turn their life around. However, we must also remember another fundamental principle, which is that every victim deserves justice. When we talk about serious sexual crimes, we are not talking about youthful mistakes or minor acts of wrongdoing, but about offences that leave lifelong scars on victims. We are talking about crimes that destroy confidence and leave families devastated. The first duty of any justice system is to protect and uphold the rights of innocent victims. That principle cannot be abandoned in the debate that we are having, and the DUP will support all victims and make the case for equitable justice across Northern Ireland.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wrote to Mr Chris Quinn on Friday to ask him a range of questions. Do children under 16 possess an equal right to criminal justice when they are raped by boys who are under 16? What message does he believe his position, as outlined, sends to girls who are already fearful of reporting rape due to low conviction rates and traumatic processes? Given the fact that we, as a society, are struggling to deal with violence against women and girls, how can he justify a position that states that boys under 16 should not be prosecuted for rape? I am still waiting for a reply from the Children's Commissioner's office or, in fact, an acknowledgement of my email to him. Hopefully, he will clarify his comments to me. These are incredibly serious crimes that we are considering, but they do occur, and when they do, victims want justice. We will stand up for the victims of crimes in that debate, even if we have to stand alone.
463 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: 0.14 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.63 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:42 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.