Paul Frew
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct.”
“In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC.”
“That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again.”
“The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court. <BR /> <BR />Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing th…”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now.”
“Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,736 lines we hold for Paul Frew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 75.
“I thank the Minister for reminding me about probation officers. There will be many more, but it is worth looking at that and seeing whether there can be an elevation. I understand that the Minister is repealing the blue-light assault offences; she can correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, she will be repealing one of the laws that I brought in. However, we are not precious about that sort of thing. We want to see proper law, and we want to see the law working to protect the people who protect us. <BR /> <BR />I have a lot of family members who work in retail, some of whom have been assaulted in the shop, but I think that they understand that they are not performing a life-changing service. They are selling food and good stuff, but they are not performing such a service.”
“There is potential to ensure that those blue-light service workers are elevated above all other public workers because of the impact of an assault on those workers. <BR /> <BR />Those three job titles are included in the Bill, but we could roll that out further. I toyed with the idea of bringing a private Member's Bill to deal with assaults on A&E staff, because that is the same logic. This could get wider, and we should maybe explore that and look at including public service workers where there is a real impact on life. We would be justified in elevating such jobs when it comes to assaults on public workers. I am sure that that will not be easy. Social workers have the same issue, because they go into people's homes and could be assaulted.”
“I worry that those blue-light service workers, who not only perform a duty and a service to the public but are lifesavers, will now be at the same level as every public worker. Whilst every public worker needs to be protected in law, there is a difference when that public service can save a life. There is logic in elevating offences for assaults on blue-light service workers, because, if you knock that worker out of commission and out of operation, that could be detrimental to the next victim. If a firefighter, police officer or ambulance worker ends up in A&E and is out of service and unable to work, it may, for example, be the case that that police officer should have been at the scene of a crime when another victim was created.”
“Of course, I had the pleasure of bringing in a law to bring ambulance workers up to that level; that was in 2016, if my memory serves me right. I brought an amendment to the Justice Bill — I think that it was during David Ford's time as Minister — to bring ambulance workers up to the same level as firefighters and police officers when it comes to aggravated assault.”
“Another issue that strikes me as interesting is the assault on public workers. It is a novel and good idea, but I worry, because it is put in the Bill as "assaults on public workers", which basically includes everyone who performs a public duty, including retail workers and everyone who produces something for the public. It is right that people get protection, but we have already had aggravators and actual crimes around assaults on people who work in blue-light services, such as police officers and firefighters.”
“I thank the Minister for her engagement and the clarification. She is right: there will be cases where people are not convicted or proven guilty. There are, therefore, times when it is right for the police to record incidents, but it should also be the case that we are careful about how that information is disclosed, because it may be the case that no crime is committed and the person is completely innocent but, because there is a recording somewhere, it could be disclosed. That could cause severe detriment to someone who has not committed a crime. That is an area that we will be able to look at and see where we go.”
“<BR /> <BR />One thing that worries me relates to the recording or non-recording of non-crime hate incidents. That is a massive issue, because no crime may have been committed, but people will have their details taken, and, somewhere in the future, details of some aspect of that person's life can be disclosed. That could have a detrimental impact on their life. If I can get some certainty regarding the recording of non-crime hate incidents —.”
“I welcome that, because I am one of the MLAs who have been nervous and worried about hate crime legislation and how it is playing out in GB with regard to some of the sentencing that is being imposed, especially for incidents in the world of social media. It is an important area. Of course, no one should be attacked because of who they are, what community they belong to, what religious group they are from or how they live their life. No one should be attacked or made a victim because of any of those factors. We should look at that, but I am glad that the Minister has gone down the road of an aggravator. That makes one fundamental difference: it will be the court, not the police officer who first arrests or questions someone, that will decide the aggravation. For me, that brings a bit of comfort and confidence on Part 6.”
“That goes to the heart of the cases involving victims such as Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian and their families and, of course, Charlotte's law and Helen's law. There has been a lot of sympathy, even in the House, for the way in which victims have been treated over the years, so it is good to see those measures in the Bill. We look forward to scrutinising them to ensure that they are the best that they can be, that victims are supported and that families can get closure on a lot of those issues. <BR /> <BR />There are some groundbreaking and new issues in Part 6, which relates to hate crime. I am glad to say that the Minister is now going for an aggravator model as opposed to potential new crimes around hate crime.”
“There can be an array of issues with regard to unduly lenient sentences, but, surely, if there is an issue at the Crown Court, that will be replicated at the Magistrates' Court. Whilst it may be a process issue, there is a problem there. A question should be posed about unduly lenient sentencing in the Magistrates' Court, which deals with some really important, serious crimes. We should pose that question. <BR /> <BR />Part 5 is:”
“Surely a massive part of why we have justice in the first place is to ensure that we do not create further victims by not rehabilitating those who could and should be rehabilitated. There are some really big issues in Part 2. <BR /> <BR />We go from suspended sentences to mandatory life sentences in Part 3. That will be an important piece too. <BR /> <BR />Part 4 deals with unduly lenient sentencing. Again, that is a massive issue. Politicians sometimes step into that area when they believe that an unduly lenient sentence has been given in a case. There has been and continues to be a process there. One of the fundamental questions that come up about Part 4 — my Justice Committee colleague Doug Beattie has raised it — is why it applies only to Crown Court cases. Why does it not apply to Magistrates' Court cases?”
“We should consider who can avail themselves of a suspended sentence order, the availability of those orders and whether there are some crimes that such an order just is not compatible with. We need to be careful there. <BR /> <BR />Part 2 also mentions pre-sentencing reports. Such reports will be really important in informing the court of issues before sentencing takes place. There are times when addiction, not least gambling addiction, plays its part in crime. The all-party group (APG) on reducing harm related to gambling is exercised on the issue, and I believe that the chair of that APG will speak later. It is important that things are included in a pre-sentencing report that not only assist the court in coming to a conclusion about the sentencing that it should hand down to someone but inform it about how someone can be rehabilitated.”
“A court can give a suspended sentence order if the sentence is between five and seven years. A custodial sentence of between five and seven years can be given for really serious crimes. A person could be put in prison for five years or seven years for really serious issues, so there will be a concern that people may receive a suspended sentence order who should really spend time in prison not only for their rehabilitation but for the safety of the victims and potential victims. It is really important that that be looked at and scrutinised appropriately. <BR /> <BR />We have seen that unduly lenient sentences have been given in GB for some of the most horrific sexual crimes and even technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences.”
“We should have smarter justice, and we should strive for smarter justice at every opportunity that we get. I understand the point about short custodial sentences: when people are thrown into prison for short periods, you do not really get time to rehabilitate them. They serve their time in there, and then they get pushed out into society again. That can sometimes be a brutal instrument, albeit it is justice. We should consider how that works and operates in practice and whether we best serve the public through short custodial sentences. <BR /> <BR />Part 2 refers to suspended sentence orders. For serious offences, it states:”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention; it was very helpful. One issue that comes to mind — there has already been interest in this from MLAs — is that of Harper's law. Whilst the Minister is right to talk about the gestation of the Bill and how long it has taken to get to this point, Harper's law has been about for a good number of years. Having met departmental officials, I know that they have been grappling with that issue for a number of years. That is just one example: a lot of MLAs ask me why Harper's law is not in the Bill but is in the sentencing review that the Department is conducting. That is just one important issue that springs to mind. <BR /> <BR />I will move through the Bill. Part 2 is on suspended sentences. It is important that we do justice in a cleverer way.”
“There is real frustration about the cogs not only of justice but of legislation turning slowly. The Bill must be welcomed, because we can now see the detail of the Minister's proposals. I give my commitment to the Minister that I will do all in my power as a DUP MLA chairing the Justice Committee to work with her and her Department to make sure that the legislation is the best that it can be and that it is wholesome. <BR /> <BR />It alarms me a wee bit that the Department has moved on another review of sentencing that will run alongside the legislative journey of the Bill. Whilst it is always important to review sentencing, I wonder whether there is a missed opportunity to do some of the work of that review and to have that in the Bill.”
“I, along with my colleagues on the Justice Committee, look forward to considering the Bill in detail at Committee Stage, subject, to its successfully passing Second Stage today. <BR /> <BR />I will make a number of points in my capacity as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson. There is no doubt that this is a really important Bill that has been a long time coming. We have looked at reviews of sentencing for many years, going back to Claire Sugden's time as Justice Minister. I was Chair of the Justice Committee at that time as well, and I worked well with Ms Sugden on these important issues. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say that the Bill is really technical. It grapples with some serious issues that have affected victims and their families up until now.”
“I have no doubt that the Bill will be of great interest to the public and to stakeholders. In fact, the Committee has already received several approaches from individuals, organisations and MLAs about what is in the Bill and, importantly, what is not in it. We will consider those matters in our scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />It is important that the Committee makes sure that the Bill delivers on its aims and helps to improve the operation and transparency of the justice system. The Committee will do all that it can to work with the Department and the Minister to make sure that that happens and that this crucial, detailed and complex legislation is fit for purpose. It will probably come as no surprise to Members when I say that I relish the scrutiny of primary legislation.”
“There is no doubt that some of the matters covered by the Bill are sensitive and will have a real-life impact on victims and their families; indeed, several measures in the Bill have been informed and championed by victims and their families.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the face of it, the Bill may be narrower in focus than the Justice Bill and the proposed departmental amendments. However, as the Department has pointed out, it deals with complex and technical matters.”
“Officials also outlined the fact that the Bill no longer included transgender identity as a protected group in the hate crime provisions, as that could not secure Executive approval. During the session, members asked further questions, and we also sought follow-up information on the deterrence factor of longer sentencing and the potential impact of longer sentencing on the prison system. That is particularly important as, as members heard, the prison population is at an all-time high, meaning that the Prison Service is under pressure. We are keen, therefore, to see the analysis that has been done on the Bill's possible impact on the Prison Service and whether it will potentially add to those existing unprecedented pressures.”
“Sentencing was one of the most complicated areas of law, with a complex mixture of legislation and practice to be taken into consideration when making any changes. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received an introductory briefing on the detail of the Bill on 5 March, two days after its introduction. I thank the officials for that briefing, which, I know, members found very helpful. Officials outlined some changes to the Bill that were proposed back in November and shared, as a draft, with the Committee. Those changes included the removal of a power for the Court of Appeal to issue its own guidance, which, officials indicated, required further development and discussion with the judiciary.”
“The latter issue was raised with the Committee by the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime during her evidence on the Justice Bill. The Department's response provided detailed information on hate crime aggravators, including evidence on the consideration given to sectarianism, age and gender as statutory aggravators, and the work carried out in other jurisdictions and how that helped to form the evidence base for the measures. The response also advised that the delay in the intended time frame for introduction was primarily due to technical and legal complexities that were encountered during the drafting stage. It also stated that the proposed content of the Bill covered a range of important sentencing issues that were significant in terms of both the number of issues being addressed and their complexity.”
“Officials said that, although they had hoped to introduce the Bill before the end of the calendar year, drafting had been complex and taken longer than expected. Committee members took the chance to ask some initial questions about issues such as the thresholds for unduly lenient sentencing, the calculations used for additional sentencing tariffs for Charlotte's law and the exploration of statutory aggravators for hate crime. <BR /> <BR />Following that initial briefing, the Committee sought clarification from the Department on the specific reasons for the delay in introducing the Bill. We also sought more information on how the protected groups in the section on hate crime aggravators had been selected and further information on the prevalence and use of victim statements in court.”
“The written paper from the Department provided background on the development of the Bill, including the public consultation that was carried out in late 2019 and early 2020, which built on a previous review of sentencing back in 2016 when Claire Sugden was Justice Minister. During the oral session, officials outlined that the Bill would cover the principles and purposes of sentencing; introduce new offences of assault on public workers; deal with unduly lenient sentencing in the Crown Court; increase penalties for dangerous driving offences; make provisions for mandatory life sentencing; introduce Charlotte's law for failing to disclose the location of victims' remains; and bring in new hate crime aggravators.”
“During oral evidence to the Committee on 25 April 2024, the Minister also outlined her wish to introduce a sentencing reform Bill in the spring of 2025. On 26 September 2024, departmental officials indicated that the Bill was being worked on, that it was likely to be complex and that it would require careful scrutiny. The Minister subsequently provided some further clarity on intended policy areas to be included in the Bill in March 2025 when she gave evidence to the Justice Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received the first comprehensive pre-legislative briefing on the Bill from officials at its meeting of 27 November 2025.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Second Stage debate on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. There is little point in my repeating what the Minister said while outlining the content of the Bill. It will be referred to the Committee should it pass Second Stage, and that is when the Committee's scrutiny will start in earnest. However, the Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, engaging with officials before and after its introduction on 3 March 2026. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was first advised of the prospect of the Bill at the start of the mandate, with the indication that it would be the second of three large pieces of legislation coming from the Department.”
“We are demonising no one; we hold everyone to account in the Chamber, as we should. I held the post of Chairperson of the Justice Committee 10 years ago, and I now hold it again. I look at the Justice Department, and I can tell you that the deterioration in our justice system is stark. The Public Prosecution Service tells us that the median time for court cases is now 750 days: that is 200 days longer than in 2020. That is what is wrong with the justice system.”
“The Justice Minister has also blamed them for being personal, yet the remarks from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend targeted only unionist politicians. Why is that? I believe that it is nothing more than tactical for a number of reasons. Not only does the Alliance Party position itself on the spectrum here closely in line with the SDLP and Sinn Féin, but it does not like scrutiny or questions. The Justice Minister also does not like questions, but we will not be deflected from our job in the Assembly of scrutinising Ministers, no matter who they are. <BR /> <BR />As Justice Chairperson, I will ensure that the Committee is given full strength of arm to scrutinise the Department properly. We will not be put off by personal attacks or slanderous remarks.”
“To state the obvious, this is a Chamber of robust debate, and so it should be. With that robustness come the scrutiny of legislation and the agreeing of motions in this place. It is right and proper that a legislature is robust and challenging so that the laws that we pass are appropriate. <BR /> <BR />I was alarmed to hear the commentary from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend, at which it was stated that an individual Minister — Justice Minister Long — was being demonised by unionist politicians. I am sorry, but we will not be deflected from doing our duty and job of scrutinising the Minister. It is a bit rich that the party referred only to unionist politicians, given that I have heard on many occasions in this place the official Opposition — the SDLP — challenge the Justice Minister.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister think that the revenue raised has been spent appropriately? Has he reviewed how the money is spent and whether we could spend it on something better?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer, but she fails to explain to the House how, she thinks, the existing legislation will cut it. Will she commit to reassessing the unrealistic targets in the Climate Change Act so that she can build the A5, the A4, the A1 and every other road that needs to be built?”
“Minister, will linear exams affect outcomes, and do you expect results to change?”
“Every time that you pay at the pump or at the tanker, you will pay for the mechanisms of regulation. There are good reasons why we have regulated electricity markets and gas markets, but even in electricity we do not have a price cap, because, if you have a price cap, that is the cost that you will pay, and you will pay that for six months until the price cap changes. It will never come down; it will always stay at the price cap. <BR /> <BR />Be wise about this. Protect consumers, do not shaft them.”
“We will all pay more at the pumps and at the tanker for oil heating every time we purchase it, not just when it spikes. <BR /> <BR />We need to do something on wholesale markets. That is what my leader talked about this morning, and it is right that the Utility Regulator is worried about the spike and about crude oil and refined oil. We have one of the best and most tightly contested and competitive retail markets for heating oil. <BR /> <BR />We should ensure that our consumers and our householders have a choice of heating. When you build houses with no chimneys, when you go to ban wood-burning stoves, when you electrify heat and when you monopolise it, all you do is make sure that consumers and householders have no choice when it comes to heating. That means that prices will go up. You will also pay for that regulation.”
“People are rightly worried about the rise in heating oil prices and the rise in petrol and diesel prices that will inevitably come and has come in a shock fashion. Almost two thirds of homes in Northern Ireland use oil for heating, and, of course, we live in a very rural place, so we all rely on our vehicles and transport to get about. We are susceptible to the worst excesses and spikes in the global market, but it is really important that we look at such things wisely. We have had calls from the Alliance Party for the regulation of the retail market: we have always been and will continue to be opposed to that regulation, because that will hurt consumers more. If you regulate retail markets that are tightly competitive, you put that spike over a period of six months. That is what you will do.”
“People were tied to lamp posts and tarred and feathered, and people were executed for daring to speak to the police and the authorities. They murdered their own people who wanted to be part of the governing structures here, even to the point of murdering someone who was collecting census forms. That is the history of Sinn Féin and its military wing, the IRA. It is no coincidence that those people have been funded many times over for many years by regimes in the Middle East, including Iran and Libya. We will take no lectures from Sinn Féin.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we look at the actions over the weekend, we hope and pray that, as a result of those actions, the people of Iran will be free and the people of the Middle East will be safer. That has to be the goal for the free Western society and all the countries that are now involved. <BR /> <BR />It is right that the UK moves to protect its people and its interests in the Middle East, and it is right and proper that it should be supported to do so. That is where we should land. <BR /> <BR />It is galling to hear people on the opposite Benches talk about human rights when many of the actions of the ayatollah and the regime in Iran were played out in places such as Londonderry and west Belfast during the Troubles.”
“I rise to consider the people of Iran, who, for decades, have lived under a totalitarian and draconian dictatorship. Those people deserve freedom, as we enjoy freedom. I hope and pray that we in the UK can do all that we can to have an influence on that freedom spreading to Iran and that the Iranian people will be able to pick their own Government and their own way of life in freedom. <BR /> <BR />I have no doubt, although I have no intelligence, that Iran poses a real, clear and present danger and a direct threat to people's freedom in the Middle East. We have seen that in its reach over the last number of days. That is happening overtly, but, covertly, Iran has been funding terrorism across the region and the world for many decades. That has led to the innocent deaths of thousands of people.”
“At the moment, however, all we see is a rudderless Finance Minister going round in circles and not delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“Those are all things that the Communities Minister wishes to deliver, but he is hamstrung by the Executive, the Finance Minister and Sinn Féin and cannot do so. <BR /> <BR />The disability strategy aims to get people who are disabled and deaf people into full-time, wholesome employment. Why can the Finance Minister not support that? If we can get more people into work by creating wholesome jobs that help their life and their physical and mental health and produce something for our GDP, why will Sinn Féin not support that? We are good at placing duties on Ministers and Departments through the laws that we pass: it is about time that we started to fund the issues that really matter. That might be by way of a legislative programme, through a Programme for Government or a capital strategy and all of the things that have been mentioned today.”
“Over the past year, however, the Communities Minister has used reserves to buy 600 homes to make sure that families are not stuck in hotel suites but have a proper home and a roof over their heads. That is not being supported properly, even though it is saving and could continue to save £75 million over seven years. <BR /> <BR />Why will Sinn Féin not support tackling fraud and error in the benefits system? That is about rooting out fraudulent activity in our benefits system that will save the Executive £25 million. It will also save the Treasury the same amount of money, but, of course, Sinn Féin does not care about the Treasury; it just wants more money from the Treasury. It does not care about saving money for the Treasury so that maybe we could speak to the Treasury with a wee bit more kudos.”
“He used Housing Executive reserves to purchase 600 homes, keeping families out of hotels and saving the Northern Ireland Executive £75 million over seven years. If something works, why are we not encouraging it, increasing it or funding it appropriately? The Finance Minister will have to ask himself why he is curtailing a Minister who is effective in saving money. There are Members across the way who want fiscal powers. They call it "tax-varying powers", but what that really means is that, if they get tax-varying powers, they will raise taxes. That is basically what it means. They will raise taxes so that the public will have to fund their inefficient public services.”
“With the Budgets from previous years, the Minister of Finance has missed so many opportunities. I will give him a couple of examples. The Communities Minister has a housing strategy: why can the Finance Minister not support it? After all, housing is a Programme for Government aim. The Programme for Government is called 'Our Plan: Doing What Matters Most', but why is it, when we prioritise housing in it, the Minister of Finance fails to fund it? Not only do we have a Budget that is not strategic and is going nowhere, but we have a Programme for Government that sits on a shelf and is ignored. <BR /> <BR />The Communities Minister is doing something about saving money for the Executive.”
“It is good to spend money on keeping our young people safe from the internet and all of the issues that they face. It is a failure of the people on the opposite Benches that they did not support the Education Minister in keeping our children safe from the problems that all Western societies face as regards mobile phones and the internet.”
“I thank the Minister for that. He neglects to mention the other inescapable pressures in the Department. It is not good enough just to say, "I funded this, this and this", when Departments, in trying to get the money to deliver that pay parity, have to exclude other inescapable pressures that they cannot deliver. Then, when Departments complain to the Finance Minister, the Finance Minister says, "You have your budget. You agreed to your budget. Live within your means".”
“It signed up to making sure that teachers, nurses, police officers and everyone else in the public sector get pay that is sufficient and that they deserve, yet the Finance Minister will not fund it.”
“They do not want Sinn Féin about the place when it comes to forming a Government and rightly so. <BR /> <BR />There are opportunities to do something really good in the three-year Budget. I have spoken about the fact that the three-year Budget cannot be three one-year Budgets. That is not strategic, and it goes absolutely nowhere. Therefore, it is important that we do something different. The Finance Minister has missed opportunities this year. The things that we, as an Assembly and an Executive, have to do are the things that most households do: to look at the inescapable pressures. Those, for Northern Ireland, will mostly be in pay. Sinn Féin signed up to pay parity.”
“All we have heard about for the past two weeks is 50:50 recruitment, whereby Sinn Féin would discriminate against my children, my grandchildren and my nieces and nephews. Sinn Féin ignores the fact that our establishment figures are well below what they should be, which means that none of us is as safe as we should be. We have had enough of the nonsense from Sinn Féin, its play in the media and its mantra about a united Ireland. I have a message for you, folks: people in the Republic of Ireland are much shrewder than you make them out to be. They do not want Sinn Féin in government; of course they do not. They see the policy difference between the North and South. They see how the drama is played out in Northern Ireland compared with Sinn Féin's policies in the South and vice versa. People in the Republic of Ireland are no fools.”
“We cannot say that at the minute. Why is that the case? Why have the Finance Minister and the Executive not stepped up? <BR /> <BR />We have received a £400 million reserve claim loan. That is a massive injection into the heart of our finances that we badly required, yet we will face massive issues in our finances. We cannot simply keep on carrying on; something has to change. We have to do something different. We have to transform our public services, and we are not doing that; we are nowhere close to doing that. I thank Gavin Robinson MP for the work that he did to secure that £400 million reserve claim loan. Where would we be without it? <BR /> <BR />It is vital that the Finance Minister and Sinn Féin get to grips with what they are about. Forget the nonsense that Sinn Féin comes out with every day.”