Jon Burrows
North Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“It is invasive for someone to be cross-examined by the person who has caused them grave trauma and great hurt — the person who has victimised them. Cross-examination can be done by legal counsel, which is sound.”
“It is adversarial for good reason, but there are really important things that we can do when it comes to process, the system, dealing with cross-examination, disclosure and character references. I hope that we have a victims and witnesses commissioner who is the loudest and strongest voice for victims.”
“I agree. I rang one of the victims on the evening after the conviction and apologised. Even though I had no role over Mr Campbell, I said that I was ashamed that that man, Lloyd-Lavery, was ever employed by the party or by an MLA and ashamed that the man who gave him a character reference was a former chair of our party.”
“I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, because our justice system in Northern Ireland is tilted towards the interests of suspects and perpetrators over and above the interests of victims and the general public.”
“There is always a balance to be struck between the rights of an unconvicted person who has been accused of a crime and the rights of the victim, and we need to get that balance right. We should never forget that there have been miscarriages of justice in our country down through the years.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Education Minister should have included the measure in the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. That would have achieved it far more efficiently, but it was not done.”
The complete record
Every one of 773 lines we hold for Jon Burrows, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 16.
“It is only right that, when the public are funding something, there be maximum transparency and clarity in frameworks for how billing decisions are made. It is a well-established fact that the defence will charge more than the prosecution, even though, as the Minister said, they have equal qualifications and are putting in the same number of hours. It is therefore only fair that they charge the same. <BR /> <BR />In principle, I support the Minister, but I want to hear all the arguments. The regulations will be key, as the devil will be in the detail. In short — I do like to be brief — it is important that there be fairness. The amendment helps recalibrate that fairness back towards the taxpayer, in that it will bring in consistency, transparency and a clear framework under which to make billing decisions. That is a positive move.”
“The legal aid system should, of course, be fair to claimants and to practitioners, but most crucially, it should be fair to taxpayers, who pay for legal aid. They work day and night, often in less attractive jobs, to put their pound into the taxation that pays for legal aid. There is a feeling, as well as facts, that the current system is not fair, procedurally and substantively. To my mind, it is only fair that solicitors and barristers be treated the same in the approach to the legal aid system and that there be a clear framework by which legal aid costs can be determined. That does not compromise the independence of the taxing master. Rather, it reinforces it by having a clear, objective framework on which decisions can be made.”
“Does the Minister agree that the issue of workload is connected in part to teachers having to deal with a small number of disruptive pupils who cause a disproportionate amount of disruption, creating a lot more work for teachers, and that it is vital that there is the capability to swiftly and firmly deal with the small minority of disruptive pupils in our schools?”
“That is a rather short and vague answer to a specific question. Thirty-three months ago, the last Police Ombudsman came under criminal investigation for perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. Can you answer this question with a yes or no: did your Department initiate a review of Ms Anderson's vetting, which, at that stage, was developed vetting that gave her access to top-secret material? Did you initiate a review of her vetting: yes or no?”
“In conclusion, I thank everyone for their forbearance. It has been a passionate debate, and I am glad that, despite the earlier interventions, my voice has been heard. Under my leadership, the Ulster Unionist Party will always stand up for victims, public protection and, yes, a compassionate justice system, but we will never silence victims. We are always on the side of victims.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion — I mean it — I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your generosity and patience, because I am passionate about the issue, if I may return to seriousness. It is bad law that is badly drafted. Thankfully, we have an emergency brake. If we did not, we would be looking at potential chaos on our streets. Migrant workers would be attacked in their homes without consequence. We would be looking at a police service that would be made impotent by not being able to investigate or intervene and at a justice system that would put the rights of perpetrators above the rights of victims. I am glad that I spoke the hard truths. If that has offended some sensitivities or has ruled me out of getting a plush job at the United Nations and if I do —”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to justify my use of the phrase "legalising rape", because the de facto outworking of Mr Carroll's dangerous amendment and the proposals in Ms Mulholland's amendment No 82 to do with 10- and 11-year-olds is that rape would not be capable of being committed by certain citizens of our country by whom it can be committed now. That is a fact, and it is incontrovertible. I stand by my statement that we would be legalising the aiding and abetting of rape and the incitement of rape, because, were the amendments to go through, it would be taken off the statute book, in which it is currently a crime, and no longer be a crime. That is legalisation. I cannot say it more clearly. I know that the Member is offended by that, but I am more offended at victims not getting justice.”
“We have the audacity in this place — this is where this place needs fundamental change to its culture. We have the audacity to —.”
“Let me say this. Let me say this: I do not give a fig, frankly, if nearly everybody in the Chamber cannot stand me. I will still ask questions. Frankly, I do not care that I am not liked by some people. <BR /> <BR />Do you know what my duty is? It is to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland; the people who need us. They will not jump in their nice car to drive home or have a nice pension with a big contribution to it and nice staff. They do not say, "Oh, isn't this a lovely environment to work in? Oh, I get a nice allowance. Oh, look at all these perks".”
“I will give you standards. I am not answerable to the people in here. I am answerable to the people out there. I do not give a fig.”
“It does, because, if you cannot commit an offence, the offence has not been committed. <BR /> <BR />People can say, "Oh, those are hurty words", but here is the thing: I have been reported to the Speaker; we have had Erskine May; we have had the United Nations. It seems to be that the feelings, sentiment and precise words used by a Member are more capable of being arbitrated and held to account for than horrendous offending by a suspect. Why do we look for that cloistered protection in here, of going to the Speaker about a word that has slightly hurt a Member's feelings?”
“We are here to speak hard, cold facts, because we are legislators. Let us take, for example, Mr Carroll's amendment, which is perhaps the most dangerous amendment known to any Parliament anywhere in the British Isles — Mrs Long thinks that that is amusing — to actually say that nobody under the age of 16 is capable of committing an offence; and it says "conclusively" that it shall be proved that nobody under the age of 16 shall be capable of committing an offence. I said that that has the effect of legalising rape.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am drawing to a conclusion.”
“In conclusion, it is a dangerous law, badly drafted. It obliterates the rights of the victim and puts on a pedestal the rights of the perpetrator. It sacrifices the rights of the victim on the altar of political correctness and nostalgia and for Members who want to see the world as they wish to see it, not the world as it is. The proposals collapsed spectacularly under any scrutiny whatsoever. Things that they said were opinion have now been accepted as fact. Things that they stated as fact have now been proved to be simply mistruths. Those who sit on that side, shaking their head —.”
“It is not opinion that the amendments do not give the victim a choice: they do not even say that the victim has a right to be heard, let alone the right to make a decision and say, "I want to bring a case against my perpetrator". I have explained jaw-dropping scenarios that run a coach and horses through the idea that a child is not capable of understanding right and wrong. <BR /> <BR />Let me give you a recap. One of the most extreme examples is that a child could be tried and found guilty of murder because they punched someone who fell over and hit their head on a kerb in a one-punch attack, yet, if they planned carefully, over many months, a serious attack on a victim, burned down their home, went back home, cleared the evidence, got alibis and wiped their phone —.”
“It is not a matter of political opinion that, under this law, someone could be guilty of aiding and abetting a rape and could not be arrested, investigated or charged. Under this law, in an exact replica of the Jamie Bulger case, the police would not be able to intervene with the suspects. Under this law, they would not be able to seize their clothes and match samples from the crime scene with the offender and the victim. Those are facts, not opinion. It is not opinion that upskirting or downblousing would not be covered by the legislation. It is not opinion that it would impact on the ability of the police to investigate a crime, impose bail conditions, take samples, exonerate someone or prove them guilty.”
“Then, I repeat the facts and wait for someone to correct me.”
“Every time that I state a fact, I am told that it has been made up.”
“because we established that there was legal immunity for murder if you are aged 10 or 11. The parents of Jamie Bulger would not have been able to report the case to the police. The police would not have been able to arrest the suspects or take forensic evidence. We established that the Minister accepted that taking forensic samples was possible only by consent, as though someone would consent to give forensic samples that would implicate them in a rape.”
“that still says that it was OK to blow people up because it was necessary. I am afraid that your view on justice has contaminated Members on this side, unwittingly, to somehow seek immunity. Perhaps you are familiar with immunity when you seek your on-the-run letters, pardons and all those things. <BR /> <BR />I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. Here is the thing: these are important issues. I will address what the Member for Foyle said. She said that I made some very good points but that the petition of concern is the issue. The points that I am making are irrefutable. I will run through all the facts again”
“Yes. I will address that in one second. <BR /> <BR />Let me just go back to the activities of the organisation that is linked to Sinn Féin. While that party was promoting a bill of rights, that organisation was still mutilating children. It was taking them with cudgels up back alleyways and dispensing its own form of justice, I have to say, by shooting children in the knees, robbing banks and preventing people from engaging with the PSNI on allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence. People have come to me and said, "I got permission to report it to you eventually". Who was that permission from? It was from Sinn Féin. I will take no lectures about a bill of rights from a political party”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I always respect the role of the Chair.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was addressing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the bill of rights that was proposed in 1998.”
“In 1998 — the proposed bill of rights — the organisation that your party is connected to was still shooting children in the knees.”
“There is nothing progressive about giving immunity to people who commit crime. There is nothing progressive about preventing a young person who is facing a serious charge not being able to plead guilty to a lesser offence. There is nothing progressive —.”
“It would look at five people involved in the exact same criminality and say to one of them, "You are facing justice, and you are getting taken to court for attempted murder" but to the other four, for conspiracy, "You are not getting touched". <BR /> <BR />It would rob the police of their ability to investigate, to gather evidence and forensics, to put people on bail conditions, to do ID parades and to do any of the things that investigate crime, stop disorder and intervene to keep us safe, and in the name of what? In the name of the UN and, "It is progressive". There is nothing progressive about taking the voice of victims.”
“I am not going to give way again. <BR /> <BR />I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. This was potentially the most catastrophically dangerous piece of law that could ever have been passed. It would have stripped victims of their rights and their voice. It would have empowered perpetrators. It would have denied justice. It would have enabled extreme misogyny. It would have provided immunity for upskirting, downblousing and sexual assault. It would have said to one victim, "If you are the victim of attempted murder, you will get justice" but would have said to another victim — the victim of grievous bodily harm with intent — "You will not get any justice at all".”
“I do not abuse anybody. If I do, please refer me to the Speaker. I do not. The facts that I provide might not be palatable and might not be what is heard on the beanbags or the —.”
“You are all honourable Members, and I pay tribute to the SDLP, as I did in a recent speech. Despite having different views, you were always peaceful and opposed violence, unlike the Members on that side. However, in this case, there was a democratic lever that is legal and on the statute book, and I have used it in extremis. I would rather walk out of this place and never come back than not do what I could. I know that you might enjoy that; that is fine. We do not have to like each other, but I do not abuse anybody in here. I just argue on the facts.”
“Members shake their heads, but that is exactly what they were going to pass. <BR /> <BR />Thank goodness for the emergency brakes that were negotiated in 1998 because, without them, we were going to disrupt and damage people in this society.”
“I do not think that Members realised that that is what they were about to pass. The suspect would only be asked to give samples. The victim would be told, "It's none of your concern. The United Nations say no". Imagine if your life had been fundamentally affected — if you had to live with first-degree burns or third-degree burns for the rest of your life, or if you had become paraplegic and your family has to look after you — the suspect cannot even be investigated, and you have no voice or say in the matter. No matter how passionately you say, "I want the facts. I mightn't even want them to go to prison for a long time, but I want a court to say that they committed a crime against me, or against my mum or my dad or my daughter", the amendments would mean that that would not happen.”
“I am talking about an investigation by the Speaker's Office. <BR /> <BR />Despite the shaking of the head, the distractions, the denials, the jumping up and down, the points of order, the interventions and all the desperate tactics, we have established that the police would not be able to investigate any crime — even serious crimes — because of the amendments. The victim would have no choice. <BR /> <BR />I will say that one more time to the good SDLP Members: the victim would not have a choice. It could be a case of sexual assault, of someone losing a limb, of grievous bodily harm, of a migrant’s house being burnt down, of a Glider being destroyed or of a petrol bomb leaving a police officer in intensive care: if the suspect is a day under the age of 14, they cannot even be investigated.”
“I have not misrepresented any points. Scrutinise Hansard, investigate and, if I have, let me be brought to justice — something that will be denied to victims of serious crime.”
“That is a fundamental misunderstanding. In that circumstance, the decision is based on the evidence of whether the case has been made out, not on whether the victim has any right to have a case investigated. Is the Minister of Justice saying that, in the Department that she oversees, there are members of the PPS who, where there is sufficient evidence of incitement to commit rape, tell a victim, "Sorry. We've got the evidence, but we're not prosecuting"? Is that what you are saying, Minister? If that is what you are saying, there needs to be a public inquiry into your Department. Every time that I —.”
“I always give way to the Justice Minister.”
“I ask this to anyone who was going to vote for those amendments tonight: could you genuinely look your constituents in the eye? The Member is nodding her head as if to say that she could look them in the eye and say, "It's right that you, as the victim of a serious sexual assault, will not have a say in bringing the perpetrator to justice". Do you feel comfortable with that?”
“We established beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no ability for the police to establish to any standard who did what. The fundamental premise is to establish the facts. The best that we can hope for is that social services might find out. Really? Will social services investigate the crime, take the samples, get them off to the forensic lab and put the bail conditions on? Those are real-life examples that collide with an ideology that is dangerously foolish. It is informed by people who do not live in the real world in which victims operate, the world that I have seen and the world that many people in this place clearly cannot comprehend.”
“The United Nations sends its regards". What sort of law are you trying to pass? What carnage would there be in your constituencies? I can see that the penny has dropped with some of you. <BR /> <BR />You are laughing.”
“Says the law. There is a lottery because your parents have to consent for you. So, the good parent who says to their child, wee Jonny, "Let the police take a sample that will prove that you raped someone or that you were involved in the aiding and abetting of rape or that you were involved in a joyriding accident that has wiped out a family. Give your sample". Wee Jonny, who is a naive fella, gives his sample, but the parents who are not as responsible say, "Say nothing, son", and the police cannot do a thing. We would reinforce not doing the right thing. <BR /> <BR />Do we live in a society where a family could be wiped out by a joyrider who is a day short of 14, and the police have to ask nicely for the forensics. They have to say, "Please would you give me your forensics?", "No, I will not." "Oh, thank you very much.”
“I have not come to that yet, Miss McAllister, but the suspect cannot have the samples taken unless they consent.”
“They do not get a say. We are delegating that say to the United Nations because that really works for our victims. <BR /> <BR />I demonstrated that the investigative capability of the police relies on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Miss McAllister jumped up and said, "Oh no, you can still take samples from the victim". You can take samples from the victim. You can swab the victim for the semen of a suspect, for the blood, for the cuts —.”
“I will not give way any more. <BR /> <BR />I ran through examples in our schools of teachers being upskirted, downbloused, sexually assaulted and receiving rape threats, and I asked whether it was fair that the victim did not get a choice in whether prosecution could be taken, and I got no answer. I consistently asked whether the victim — I know that Members do not want to hear this — got a choice. Does the victim get a say? Does the victim even get consulted? The answer is no. <BR /> <BR />The state will tell you whether you are entitled to justice, not the young girl who has been assaulted, not the girl who has been cyberflashed or bullied, not the teacher who has been sexually assaulted, not the family of someone who has been run over by an e-scooter and not the residents of Alexander House, when petrol bombs rained down on them.”
“yet the victims —. There was an admission that the case of Jamie Bulger could not be investigated. There was an admission that serious offences would simply be brushed away. There were desperate attempts to say that the police could detain a nine-year-old. Yes, they could, but they could not criminally investigate them. People asked us to justify why we are not changing the law from the age of 10 to 9, even though they are the ones changing in the law, and it is for them to justify it. They fundamentally failed to do so, and their case collapsed. As it did, they shook their heads, chuntered and got annoyed.”
“I came into politics promising to be straight-talking. They are a BA (Hons), an MSc and an LLM with distinction, but we will move on from that. An aspect of my thesis was on the criminal responsibility of young people, but I will leave that aside for one second. It certainly prepared me for coming in here and listening to the highly experienced legislators who want to pass a law but do not know what it means. Anyway, thank goodness that there are emergency brakes that we can pull in extremis. <BR /> <BR />I then ran through the cold, hard facts that cut through nostalgia like a hot knife through butter. All the nice words”
“I am a man of modesty. The Minister asked me a straight question, and she got a straight answer.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am modest about my credentials, which”
“Yes. I have a degree in law and politics, a master's degree in international criminal justice and a master's degree in human rights law.”
“They have to have it pointed out to them that one type of incomplete offence — attempted murder — was included, while another — conspiracy to commit murder — was not, and then they say, "Well, we can just finesse the amendment at Further Consideration Stage". Finesse it? It is fundamentally flawed. It needs to be ripped up, thrown out and looked at again. <BR /> <BR />I have dealt with the fact that the amendment is ill advised and based on the world as we want to see it, not the world as it is. I am afraid that it is based on a world in which we read textbooks and listen to academics who have degrees in criminology but no common sense. May those who labour about the —.”
“Do you know what I have noticed while sitting here today with people who are on good wages and live in a cloistered environment? They want there to be accountability for something that was said that was slightly unsettling, yet they would say to the victim of a serious crime, "Sorry, your feelings don't count". When the feelings of well-paid legislators who live in leafy areas of Northern Ireland are cared about more than those of children and women who have been upskirted, downbloused, sexually assaulted or sexually humiliated, you realise that this place has lost its moral compass. <BR /> <BR />What is proposed today is shameful: to legalise the most serious crimes and to make law without doing decent due diligence.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments may be procedurally competent, but they can still be dangerous law. It is the duty of someone standing in the Chamber as a legislator to point that out. <BR /> <BR />Diane Abbott, I think, said that the job that we do — I am privileged to do it — is:”