Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 60.
“It would be remiss of us not to comment on the fact that STROs were being discussed in 2014, and we are now in 2022. Therefore, I think that the time has well passed for us to take positive, decisive action and to see their introduction in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has taken the opportunity through the Bill to bring forward additional legislative provision to improve the support and protection that are given to victims of human trafficking and modern slavery and to build on the 2015 Act. I look forward to the debate on the second group of amendments. Before I finish, I place on record the Committee's appreciation to all the organisations that provide vital support and assistance to victims of human trafficking, exploitation and modern slavery.”
“That would make our system similar to what is in place in England, Wales and Scotland. <BR /> <BR />The Committee therefore decided to table amendment No 17, which places a duty on the Department to bring forward by 2024 protective measures, such as STROs, for victims of slavery or trafficking. That approach provides the Department with the flexibility to take account of the findings of the consultation when shaping the provisions relating to STROs. It also ensures that they will be in place within a reasonable time frame and that any further long delays are avoided. I understand that the Minister is content with that amendment, and the Committee appreciates her support.”
“The Committee believes that STROs would be a useful additional tool in Northern Ireland in tackling and disrupting human trafficking and modern slavery, and in assisting in the prevention of reoffending. The Committee is disappointed at the lack of progress by the Department in that area and wants work to be expedited to provide STROs when a defendant is convicted of a crime other than human trafficking but where there is a suspicion that trafficking may be involved; where there is a connection between human trafficking and the offending behaviour; and where people have not been convicted, including in situations where there is a need to protect future potential victims while modern slavery or human trafficking crimes are being investigated, particularly when those investigations are very long and drawn out.”
“They clarified that the STROs had originally been consulted on in 2014 and that a decision was made at that time not to include them in the 2015 Act. They were subsequently introduced in England and Wales in 2015. Scotland's equivalent is the trafficking and exploitation risk order. The Department acknowledged that there was widespread support for their introduction in Northern Ireland from a range of non-governmental organisations and bodies involved in modern slavery and human trafficking issues. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted examples of the beneficial use of STROs in England and Wales, the positive findings of the 2017 Home Office review of their effectiveness and the findings of the May 2019 independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
“In October 2020, the Criminal Justice Inspection report also recommended that the Department of Justice, in consultation with the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service, consider the experience in England and Wales. It recommended that, within one year of the publication of its report, they look at the need for STROs in Northern Ireland as a way to prevent modern slavery and human trafficking-related crimes and to support victims. <BR /> <BR />When asked about the current position, Department of Justice officials advised that preparations were being finalised for a public consultation early this year on the introduction of STROs in Northern Ireland, with the aim of identifying an appropriate legislative vehicle as soon as possible in the next mandate, depending on the outcome of the consultation.”
“The Committee agreed to table amendment No 16 to extend the statutory defence on exploitation to include class A drugs in order to provide adequate protection for victims who are trafficked for heroin distribution. <BR /> <BR />I move now to the last amendment in the group, amendment No 17, which deals with protective measures for victims of slavery or trafficking. Slavery and trafficking risk orders (STROs) are available in England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland. The independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner highlighted in her 2019-2020 report and, more recently, when she attended an event hosted by the Assembly's all-party group on modern slavery, slavery and trafficking risk orders as a means of protecting victims of modern slavery, and she recommended that consideration be given to implementing them in Northern Ireland.”
“At that time, there were a number of cases of human trafficking for cannabis cultivation in Northern Ireland. More recently, however, there has been an increase in the number of victims who have been trafficked for heroin distribution. Heroin is a class A drug and not currently covered by the statutory defence. The Committee noted that the Department had commenced a review of the statutory defence and was gathering evidence and reviewing relevant judgements and research. The Committee, however, believes that the Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that the legislative intent of the 2015 Act in relation to the statutory defence for victims recovered from criminal exploitation relating to drug use is updated to reflect emerging forms of exploitation.”
“In Northern Ireland, the defence does not apply to an offence that, in the case of a person over the age of 21, is punishable on indictment with imprisonment for life or a term of at least five years, other than a defined list of offences, including drug-related offences for class B or C drugs and offences relating to false immigration documents. <BR /> <BR />Questions were raised in the evidence that was received by the Committee about whether the current statutory defence provides adequate protection for victims of emerging forms of criminal exploitation. It was highlighted that the legislative intent of the statutory defence in the 2015 Act was to ensure its availability for victims who were recovered from criminal exploitation relating to drug use.”
“<BR /> <BR />My colleagues in the DUP and I have proposed two separate amendments on the support for victims. My colleague Peter Weir will outline the rationale for those during the debate on this group of amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 deals with the extension of the statutory defence on exploitation. Section 22 of the 2015 Act provides a statutory defence for victims and survivors of human trafficking for certain offences. It gives effect to the principle of the non-punishment of trafficking victims. That is affirmed in international law and guidance and is aimed at ensuring that a victim of trafficking is not punished for unlawful acts committed as a consequence of trafficking.”
“The Committee, therefore, proposed amendment Nos 12 and 13 to provide statutory support for victims to cover them from the presentation stage to the NRM decision, based on need. From receipt of a positive NRM decision, statutory support would be provided for 12 months, or less if it were no longer required. The period of support following a positive NRM decision aims to provide the support required to aid a victim’s recovery and to assist them in moving forward while not providing a disincentive to move out of support. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate the Minister’s indication at the Committee meeting last Thursday that she would support the amendments. The Committee is also happy to work with the Minister and her officials to address any minor technical or drafting issues that may be required prior to Further Consideration Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ensuring support is particularly important given the potential future pressures on the Department’s budget, which are very likely to result in difficult funding decisions being taken and discretionary areas of spend potentially being reduced or ceased. On that point, I thank the Minister for again taking the time to meet the Committee to discuss the particular concerns that have been raised about the Department's budget. It is clear that there are particular pressures. However, despite those, we need to ensure that we keep a very close focus on the victims of this abhorrent crime, which is, sadly, still prevalent in our society. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was also conscious of the motion that was unanimously supported by the Assembly in October 2020, which called for:”
“Victims of modern slavery and trafficking are victims of the most horrendous crimes. The Committee is concerned that, sadly, the number of victims is increasing but the number of convictions remains low. The Committee believes that there are strong arguments for ensuring that support be provided to the victims who need it, rather than providing it on a discretionary basis, pending not only the determination of their status through the NRM process but from the point at which they are confirmed to be a victim following a positive conclusive grounds decision. That would enhance their protection from re-trafficking and assist in their recovery and engagement with the criminal justice agencies to help to secure increased convictions.”
“The officials advised that support is provided in excess of 45 days in 95% of all current cases. For cases going through the NRM process, support is typically provided for 150 days, but it can be provided in excess of that in some cases, largely due to the length of time that is taken for the Home Office competent authority to make reasonable grounds or conclusive grounds decisions in individual cases. The officials highlighted the fact that the Minister gave a clear commitment to progressing the work needed to increase support for trafficked victims, which will be a key element of the development of a longer-term strategy for human trafficking and modern slavery.”
“<BR /> <BR />When the Committee discussed the issues with departmental officials, they confirmed that section 18 of the 2015 Act places a statutory duty on the Department to provide assistance and support to adults who are potential victims of human trafficking during a 45-day recovery and reflection period, pending the determination of their status as victims through the NRM process. It also provides for support to be continued on a discretionary basis following a positive conclusive grounds decision based on assessed need.”
“In those circumstances, they will be vulnerable to being re-trafficked and are unlikely to have the sense of stability and security that would encourage them to engage with the criminal justice agencies and assist in bringing traffickers to justice. Figures provided to the Committee suggested that the number of victims with a positive NRM outcome requiring support is likely to be small and would comprise those who are an EEA victim with pre-settled status or a non-EEA victim waiting for a decision on a concurrent asylum claim or other immigration application.”
“<BR /> <BR />The organisations highlighted that a positive NRM conclusive grounds decision does not in itself give rise to a benefit entitlement or access to support with any degree of security from the point when someone is confirmed a victim. While the 2015 Act provides for support to be continued on a discretionary basis, under that power, support is currently being provided only to a limited number of victims and only as a short-term transition to mainstream services or repatriation. That lack of statutory support leaves some recognised survivors of human trafficking homeless, destitute and completely reliant on the charitable support that they receive.”
“<BR /> <BR />Proposals to provide additional support to people while in the national referral mechanism (NRM) process, which determines whether a person is a genuine victim of trafficking or slavery, following receipt of a positive conclusive decision and when appealing a negative NRM decision, were put forward. The Committee discussed them in depth during oral evidence sessions with organisations that work with and provide direct support to victims of trafficking and exploitation, including CARE NI and the Migration Justice Project organisations, which include the Law Centre NI, Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid, Flourish NI and Migrant Help. We also discussed that with Department of Justice officials.”
“There was widespread support for clauses 16 and 17. However, a number of organisations believed that the legislation provided an opportunity to go further to improve the support and protection provided to victims of trafficking and exploitation. The evidence received by the Committee highlighted the need for the statutory support and assistance provided to victims of trafficking and exploitation to be extended beyond what is available under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which, when it was brought forward by my friend and colleague Lord Morrow, led the way in tackling those horrendous crimes and providing support to victims. A Member who spoke previously made reference to the change that that legislation has made and the benefit that it has brought about.”
“— just for clarity? Earlier, the Minister made reference to the amendment about payment. Can she clarify — maybe we should clarify this — that that is not about us seeking to amend the 2015 Act; it relates to the Bill and is not a reference to the 2015 Act. That is clear from the Committee's deliberations on it. It is very specific. With regard to the first amendments, which we did not move, will the Minister — I suspect that this will be the case — take into account the extensive correspondence that we have now received from Professor Clare McGlynn on those issues? We will share that with the Minister because there are some points contained in it that need to be addressed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally and briefly, on amendment No 24, while the Committee supported the long title as drafted, if the proposed amendments in this group are made, I understand that the long title will need to be amended to better reflect the Bill's content. When the Minister makes her concluding remarks, she will perhaps give an assurance that the purpose of that is to ensure that it fits the content of the Bill and is not to widen its scope in any way. <BR /> <BR />I conclude my comments as Chair. My party colleagues will contribute to the debate from the DUP's perspective.”
“<BR /> <BR />The need for the legislative framework to be strengthened in those areas is clear, and the Committee, therefore, in principle, supports amendment Nos 18, 19, 20 and 23 to provide clarity and certainty in relation to the common-law case position that a person cannot lawfully consent to their serious harm for the purposes of sexual gratification and to provide for a new offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation. Unfortunately, the text of what are detailed amendments was not available in time for the Committee to consider them in depth, seek the views of stakeholders or carry out further proper scrutiny before the end of Committee Stage.”
“The Public Prosecution Service also indicated that, despite the seriousness of these types of assault, non-fatal strangulation was very difficult to prosecute and the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland in its 2019 report, 'No Excuse: A Thematic Inspection of the Handling of Domestic Violence and Abuse Cases by the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland', recommended that the Department should review, with input from relevant stakeholders, how potential inadequacies in current legislation regarding the act of choking or strangulation by defendants could be addressed.”
“It is a start and a move in the right direction, but I take the point that, as legislators, we must continue that work. The Minister shares the view that we must use every possible legislative means to bring these issues to the attention of the police and, eventually and hopefully, into a courtroom. <BR /> <BR />I have a few final comments about these amendments. These issues were brought to the attention of the Committee during the Committee Stage of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, and there were calls at that time for the legal framework to be strengthened and for the introduction of a specific offence of non-fatal strangulation.”
“Sadly, we have come to learn more of what goes on on the Dark Web. It can instil only greater determination in us all, whether in this House or in other legislatures, to do all that we possibly can to make sure that we have closed down every opportunity for people to exploit others, cause serious harm and lead to sad circumstances and situations for young people, for families and in homes right across society.”
“We are trying to go as far as we can within the remit of the powers that pertain in Northern Ireland. The Member will be aware that a Bill is going through the House of Commons in relation to the use of various technological means. That communications Bill will have an impact, because, sadly, no matter how much we legislate and how much we try to curtail the activities of those who want to engage in that dreadful behaviour, they will always seek another means.”
“The Department had previously briefed the Committee on the results of a consultation on such an offence that had indicated strong support for a hybrid offence triable in the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court and for lengthy maximum sentences in both. At that time, it indicated that legislation covering that would be brought forward in the next Assembly mandate.”
“However, the amendment will put clarity and certainty into the law in the interests of victims and will ensure that, where serious harm within the defined text of the amendment occurs, the perpetrator will not be able to raise the claim that the victim consented to the harm being inflicted. The amendment also makes it clear that there are no limits on the nature of the relationship between the parties, making its application across the board absolutely clear. <BR /> <BR />The Department also advised the Committee that, given the close link between rough sex and non-fatal strangulation, the Minister was also tabling an amendment to introduce a new offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation, with the intention that the defence of consent will not be available for the new offence where serious harm occurs.”
“A range of organisations commented on the issue, with many stating that the law is not fit for purpose in dealing with violent crimes where the term "rough sex" is used as a defence. They wanted to see an amendment that would abolish it as a defence in criminal proceedings. The PSNI highlighted that it was essential that the gravity and the high-risk indicators that are attached to the occurrences of strangulation are recognised. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission referred to the need to ensure that it is implemented in a way that is compliant with human rights law. <BR /> <BR />Departmental officials subsequently outlined to the Committee that, normally, the common law does not treat rough sex as a defence.”
“The Committee will consider that issue as part of its scrutiny of the draft Budget for 2022-25. The Committee is content to support amendment No 5 in principle but was unable to properly scrutinise the text of the amendment in the time that was available to it. <BR /> <BR />In July 2021, the Department advised the Committee that work was being undertaken to develop amendments to set in legislation the common case law position that a person cannot lawfully consent to their serious harm for the purposes of sexual gratification. While the text of the proposed amendment was not available at that time, the Committee drew attention to the Minister's intention as part of its call for evidence on the Bill.”
“I turn to amendment Nos 5, 18, 19, 20 and 23, which reference new offences. The Minister has outlined the background to and the purpose of the amendments. The Committee received comments welcoming the proposal in amendment No 5, and organisations viewed it as addressing a clear need. Departmental officials confirmed that, while the amendment sought to widen the scope of the existing offence of disclosure of private photographs or films with the intent to cause distress to include the threat to disclose, it does not alter the fundamental elements of the main disclosure offence. The PSNI stated that it is likely that the threats will be made in some part through online means and highlighted the increasing workload of the cybercrime unit and the public protection arrangements and the resulting resource implications.”
“The Committee will therefore support amendment No 4, but it would be helpful if the Minister could outline how robust her amendment is, given the view expressed that it is not expansive enough to protect children from adults in a position of trust; clarify how exactly widening the scope could interfere with article 8 rights in a way that her amendment does not, bearing it in mind that the Children's Commissioner and children's organisations raised no concerns in that regard; and say on what basis there is any greater risk of inappropriately increasing by stealth the age of sexual consent or criminalising young people unnecessarily, taking into account the fact that the provision relates solely to those in positions of trust. The Committee may wish to further consider its position on the issue before Further Consideration Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed the issues raised by the Minister and, given the limited time before Committee Stage had to be completed, agreed not to table an amendment to extend the scope at this stage but rather to take the opportunity at Consideration Stage to seek further information and clarification of the basis for the Minister's concerns.”
“Her concerns centred around whether widening the scope could attract legal challenge based on the rights of an individual under article 8, the right to private and family life. She was also concerned that there was a clear risk of inappropriately increasing by stealth the age of sexual consent, which would be open to successful legal challenge. In her view, care should be taken to avoid that and to ensure that any undue interference in a young person's ability to freely express their autonomy is limited. The Minister also stated that framing the positions of trust provision too widely ran the risk of over-criminalising young people, who could be considered to be breaking the law if, for example, a person aged 18 had sexual relations with a person aged 16 or 17.”
“<BR /> <BR />While the Committee welcomes the intention to extend the abuse of trust provisions, it wants to see legislation in this area that is robust and inclusive and affords protection to as many young people as possible. Members were not fully convinced that amendment No 4 does that and therefore considered tabling an amendment to extend the scope to include those in a position of trust in relation to young people who would not be included in the extension to cover certain activities carried out in sport and faith settings. <BR /> <BR />The Committee advised the Minister of the intent of its proposed amendment, and she responded, indicating that widening the provision would have significant consequences.”
“It wanted to see the amendment widened to give 16- and 17-year-olds protection from all adults in a position of trust in relation to them, regardless of the setting. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed those issues and concerns with departmental officials, who outlined the rationale for the approach being taken and assured the Committee that the Department had worked closely with the NSPCC in the development of the policy proposals. However, the amendment does not appear to reflect the views of the NSPCC, the Children's Commissioner or other children's organisations, and the Committee was also concerned about the strong views expressed by the Children's Commissioner regarding the position of the Department.”
“The NSPCC stated that adults working in non-statutory settings in a position of trust to 16- and 17-year olds in areas other than religion and sport will remain outside the law, which conflicts with the views expressed in the Department's public consultation on child sexual exploitation law and in the joint stakeholder workshop that the NSPCC facilitated with the Department in May 2021, where respondents overwhelmingly supported an inclusive approach to legislative change that included all adults working in a position of trust in relation to a child. The NSPCC was also concerned that the amendment lacked clarity and could cause confusion about which activities fall within the definition.”
“That is, sadly, what we face in our society. Surely we, as legislators, have a duty to do all that we can to ensure that we give the best possible protection in those circumstances. <BR /> <BR />The NSPCC noted that the proposed amendment mirrored the approach for England and Wales adopted in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and reiterated its view that it does not go far enough, nor is it expansive enough to protect children from adults in a position of trust in relation to them.”
“It advised the Committee that it knows that perpetrators of child abuse and sexual exploitation deliberately seek out loopholes in the law and settings where they will go undetected.”
“The Children’s Commissioner also had significant concerns about the Department's position that further evidence must be provided that children have been sexually abused by adults in positions of trust outside of sporting and religious settings before further amendments to widen the scope can be considered. <BR /> <BR />Barnardo’s stated that the proposed amendment was too narrow in scope. In its view, the legislation should be as strong as possible from the outset. It stated:”
“In response, the Children’s Commissioner advised that she was deeply concerned that provisions to address current legislative gaps in safeguarding children and young people from abuse and exploitation by those in positions of trust should not be limited only to certain settings. She noted:”
“The key themes in the evidence provided were: as broad a range of extra-curricular activities as possible should be covered to ensure that 16- and 17-year-olds are protected from potential grooming; technological advances mean that there is an even more pressing need to extend the abuse of trust provisions; and if the scope is too narrow, there will be loopholes that perpetrators will still be able to target. <BR /> <BR />When the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and the Children's Commissioner attended to give oral evidence on the Bill, they made it clear that an amendment focused only on extending the scope to cover activities in sports and religious settings would not go far enough to protect children. When the text of the Minister’s amendment was available, the Committee invited further views from those organisations.”
“Following consideration of the NSPCC briefing paper on its Close the Loophole campaign to extend abuse of trust legislation, the Committee sought further information on the position and recent developments in England and Wales and other relevant jurisdictions, including Jersey and the Republic of Ireland, as it was aware that the Minister intended to table an amendment to widen the scope as part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Although the text of the Minister’s amendment was not available at the time, a range of organisations commented on the proposal to legislate in this area in the written evidence provided to the Committee on the Bill.”
“However, given the time constraints to complete the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Committee was not able to consider the text of those amendments — amendment Nos 7, 8, 10, 21 and 22 — in detail, to seek out the views of key stakeholders or to carry out adequate scrutiny of them. <BR /> <BR />We heard the rationale that Mr Allister gave in the House today on amendment No 9, which he tabled. He set before Members his reasons why he believes that his amendment should be supported in the House this afternoon. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 seeks to introduce a new clause dealing with abuse of position of trust. The Minister outlined the background to the amendment and the reasons for the approach that she has taken to widen the scope of the abuse of position of trust provision.”
“The Committee believes that that is a step in the right direction in trying to reduce the trauma of these types of cases for victims and to encourage them to engage with the criminal justice system on such cases. The Committee is therefore content with the inclusion of this provision in the Bill, and, given that it is logical to carry the principle of the exclusion of the public from court hearings of serious sexual offences cases through the entire court process, including any appeal hearings against conviction or sentence, the Committee also agreed that it is content to support the principle of the amendments tabled by the Minister in this regard.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that the provision implements Sir John's Gillen's recommendation, which was reached following a significant period of engagement and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and the public. It also provides the court with the discretion to permit any other person to remain in the court where it considers it in the best interests of justice so to do.”
“However, as has been stated, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission said that, while it is permissible for criminal proceedings to be carried out in the absence of the public, that is considered to be a special measure that should be used only where a special protective need is identified. The commission expressed its view that consideration of such a measure should be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the circumstances of the case, and advised that consideration be given to the adoption of an individual approach within a structured framework, which could include a judicial decision at the commencement of the trial.”
“Views were expressed that that would be less intimidating and daunting for the victim and would encourage more victims to engage with the justice system and not to withdraw from the process, as they would be giving their evidence in front of fewer people and be more assured that their anonymity would be protected. Anonymity is of particular importance in a small jurisdiction such as Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Requests were also made for clause 15 to be widened to cover all sexual offences cases, all sexual offence cases involving a child or cases involving domestic abuse offences.”
“However, conscious of the proposed Budget and related constraints, and concerned that it would place a focus on administration rather than delivery, she said that she did not support the amendment. I welcome her comments in the House today and the recognition that guidance is a key component in the effective implementation of the legislation. I ask the Assembly to support the Committee's amendment. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to amendment Nos 7, 8, 9 10, 21 and 22, which relate to anonymity in the Court of Appeal. In the evidence received by the Committee, there was widespread support for the exclusion of the public from court hearings of serious sexual offence cases, as provided for by clause 15.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee believes that guidance, training and data collection are fundamental to the successful implementation of Part 1 of the Bill, particularly with regard to the new offences that are being created, one of which — downblousing — is unique to this jurisdiction. The Committee, therefore, agreed to bring forward amendment No 11, which places a duty on the Department to provide and review, in due course, the guidance, training and data collection in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. I trust that that will not be a tick-box exercise, but something that is meaningful and purposeful, because that is the intent of our amendment. <BR /> <BR />Initially, the Minister indicated to the Committee that she was committed to ensuring the provision of guidance, training and data collection.”
“The Committee is of the view that a clear understanding and effective implementation of the new offences by the criminal justice agencies, which leads to successful prosecutions, is vital. Otherwise, it will be impossible to build victims' confidence in the system and encourage them to come forward, report offences and engage and participate in the criminal justice process. I trust that victims and the community will take on board what we have been saying in all of this: it is about bringing those responsible before the courts and to justice. It is vital that all the elements and component parts of the preparation, understanding and implementation of the legislation work in a collective manner.”