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 4 of 16.
“I agree. The amendments are beyond rescuing. They would need to be fundamentally rewritten. The change would have to be made in a youth justice Bill. That is the appropriate and responsible way of dealing with the issue. In principle, I would like to strengthen some of the provisions of the youth justice system and put in place a legislative presumption of diversion for many crimes by 10- and 11-year-olds that would operate in practice under our current legislation. I will work with the Minister. I do not claim to have any expertise, but I spent 25 years in policing and commentating on policing. I have two degrees, including a master's degree, in this stuff. I have studied it for most of my adult life. I passionately believe that what we are doing is wrong.”
“May I continue? <BR /> <BR />No evidence has been presented for why the five offences are listed and other offences are not, other than that it may be because of the expertise of the drafters. Why is there a cliff edge by age or by offence? Why should conspiracy to murder receive no consequences but murder receive life imprisonment? Why is a child able to understand the complexity of a murder case in a Crown Court but not a shoplifting case in a Magistrates' Court? Such irrationalities litter the Bill. It simply does not stand up to any scrutiny.”
“I would never speak ill of my former colleague. <BR /> <BR />The five offences that are listed —”
“What a stunning admission of the absolute folly of making a fundamental change to our criminal justice system on the back of a Back-Bench amendment: that the Back-Benchers do not have the expertise to draft properly in law, and yet we were going to pass a law tonight that was going to endanger our citizens.”
“— but the person who commits it is completely guilty. I will give way to the Justice Minister.”
“The amendment, drafted by a Back-Bencher, runs a coach and horses through that fundamental principle of our law. It says that the conspirer, the inciter, the aider and abetter is completely innocent —”
“The list has been drawn up on the back of a fag packet. It has been designed so that the Members who tabled the amendments can give some comfort to the public by saying, "Look: in this extreme case, action will be taken. Don't worry: there will be no outrage". However, it has been done so amateurishly as to include what is called the "incomplete offence" that can go with a serious offence. The substantive offence is murder, and what is called the "incomplete" or "inchoate" offence is attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, aiding and abetting or incitement. They are all treated exactly the same in law. If you incite murder, you are as culpable as the person who commits murder. The sentence is the same. If you conspire to murder, you are as culpable as the person who commits the murder.”
“It charges only as a last resort. However, the system allows us not just to deal with serious cases but to gather evidence. The nuance would completely disappear —.”
“Legal flexibility would completely disappear from our criminal justice system. We have one of the best youth diversion systems in Europe. We have a compassionate and human rights-compliant police service. It has been said to me that the age of criminal responsibility in some despotic countries is higher than it is in Northern Ireland, as if that were a sign that we have a human rights problem. I ask you this: would you rather your son or daughter were arrested in Northern Ireland, where the criminal age of responsibility is 10, or in a despotic country like Russia, where there is a higher age of criminal responsibility? The age is not the issue; it is the fact that you have a police service that is human rights-compliant, proportionate and takes a compassionate view of young people. The PPS is extremely flexible.”
“Someone who has planned a murder over months and months would be deemed not to understand the offence, but someone who has struck another person once in an emotional bad temper and that person then hit their head off a kerb could be convicted for life. That is not fair. It is not justice. The amendment is not fit for purpose.”
“The other contradiction is that you can be, as I said, charged with murder or attempted murder but not conspiracy to murder. You can be charged with attempted murder but not GBH with intent. Even if someone showed understanding of what they did, such as the premeditated petrol bombing of a migrant's house — they wore a balaclava, they went home after, washed and got changed, and they had alibis all lined up, which would show premeditation, an understanding of criminal law and that they knew that what they were doing was wrong — they could not face justice. However, somebody who punches another person once and they fall and hit their head off the kerb could face life imprisonment. That is where arbitrary offences simply do not make sense. I will put you through that again.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me turn to the five offences that are listed. The fact that five offences and five offences only were listed is an example of the irrationality of the amendment. There is a glaring contradiction. At the first point, we say that young people are not able to understand right from wrong. We then say that we are prepared to put a young person on trial for their liberty for life in the most complex, high-stress Crown Court environment: a murder trial. We say that they do not understand a lesser charge but are able to navigate a Crown Court case.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I will run through some other offences. Downblousing would not be a crime, and the victim could not get any justice, nor would cyberflashing, deepfake porn or threats of rape. There are cases in Northern Ireland where children and teachers have been threatened with rape. If they rang the police, the police would say that no crime was committed. That is a horrendous signal at the wrong time. It is also the case with sexual humiliation and harassment. This is not progressive; it is deeply irresponsible. I asked the Justice Minister this: was the amendment screened in the context of violence against women and girls and against our Executive-wide strategy to combat violence against women and girls? The answer was no: we had not even assessed that. That was deeply irresponsible.”
“It seems that, when reality collides with theory, those on the opposite side of the House want to shout me down. <BR /> <BR />Let me finish the examples that I was giving. Upskirting would not be a crime if the suspect was one day below 14, and, if the teacher rang the police because the suspect denied it and that person had an image on their phone that they wanted to circulate, the police could not even seize the phone to prove or disprove the offence. What does that say to women in our society? What way is that to treat women in our society? Ms Sheerin said, "Well, they can wear trousers". Hang on a second: women should not have to wear trousers to avoid being upskirted in our schools. I supported pupils' right to wear trousers if they wish, but I am —”
“Upskirting would not be a crime. What signal would that send to a society that has a problem with femicide and extreme misogyny? There are young men who watch extreme porn and are influenced by online bigots and misogynists who think that it is OK to upskirt a schoolteacher.”
“The answer that has been given is that five offences were picked to avoid public outrage. Seeking to avoid public outrage is exactly not the way to make law. <BR /> <BR />I have listened to the testimony of schoolgirls and teachers. The following things would not be against the law in Northern Ireland for anyone who was one day shy of their fourteenth birthday, yet this is what parties are passing a law about tonight”
“We are in some imaginary world where, if a group of people are responsible for a heinous crime, we are saying that the person who is guilty of attempted murder should face the full rigours of the law and go to prison for life, yet someone who aided and abetted or conspired to commit that murder and is equally culpable under our existing law cannot even be arrested. How would the police investigate a conspiracy if all those who conspired had not committed an offence, only the person who committed the substantive offence? They could not seize their phones. They could not seize their clothes. The conspirators could not be interrogated in an interview. That simply does not make sense. There is no logical explanation for why attempted murder could be prosecuted but not conspiracy to murder. It is stuff for the birds, but this is legislation.”
“Absolutely. I will address that point specifically in one moment. <BR /> <BR />Let me give Members some cold, hard facts and examples of real offending that would not be a crime, that could not be investigated by the police and that would result in the victim not having any say in whether a criminal case was taken. I will explain some of them. In a case of aiding and abetting rape by someone who was a day short of 14 years of age — I will give not a theoretical example but an example of something that happened in England last year — someone was prosecuted just last month and convicted.”
“I asked the question, and it was dodged. I was given examples of where, sometimes, victims do not want to take a case to court, but if a victim has been seriously assaulted and had their house burnt down or if a family has been wiped out by joyriders who caused death by dangerous driving, they do not even get the option of whether the persecutor can be taken to court.”
“We have established that, between the ages of 10 and 11, there is complete immunity, and then, between the ages of 12 and 13, there is immunity for all offences bar five that effectively relate to murder, rape, attempted murder and attempted rape. It is all done by an amendment: a radical rewriting of our criminal justice law in Northern Ireland not with extensive research but with a Back-Bench amendment. Fundamentally, the failure of those who have tabled and supported the amendment is that they see the world as they want to see it and not the world as, I am afraid, it is. I have seen that world, in which a child was held in a room and gang-raped by other teenagers. It is horrible, and the things that you see you cannot unsee. <BR /> <BR />I will never tell a victim of crime that she has no choice about whether a case is brought.”
“We are talking about a toddler who was abducted, selected —.”
“These are important matters, and my voice should be heard.”
“The Bulger case in Liverpool involved Venables and Thompson, two 10-year-olds, who selected a victim. It was clear that they were out looking for a victim. Some Members are shaking their heads, but we are talking about a real case.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to Mr Givan.”
“When I raised the fact about taking biometric samples, such as DNA — I think that it was to Ms Mulholland's disappointment — the Justice Minister jumped to her feet and said that they could do it voluntarily. Voluntarily? Someone has been raped or murdered, and we are relying on a voluntary requirement.”
“It may surprise those who are listening at home that I am not proposing to change the law. It is not for me to propose that. The age of 10 is a minimum floor that has worked. Let us look at it. The exact circumstances —. They can shake their heads, but what if one of their constituents approached them and said, "My child was abducted, tortured and murdered, and there are two suspects, both of whom deny it, and the Police Service can't even make an arrest to confirm or dispel which one did it"?”
“I will give way. Hopefully, it is for a better intervention than that one.”
“We are talking about the rights of victims who are sexually abused and about justice, and that is the best that you can do. That was a shameful intervention.”
“If the amendment that is co-signed by the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin and the SDLP were to pass, a 10-year-old who was in exactly the same circumstances as those involved in the Jamie Bulger case — it is right to talk about a serious case, because serious cases, although rare, are not non-existent — were to abduct, torture and murder someone, as was done to Jamie Bulger, the police could not even arrest them, seize their clothes, subject them to forensic evidence —.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />— diverted anyway. We have a compassionate and flexible criminal justice system that makes diversion the primary way of dealing with young people but gives the option for the police to gather evidence to intervene in a case and, in extremis, to take cases to court. Amendment No 82 in particular was ill-thought-out. Let me spell out precisely what amendment No 82 says. If I have read it correctly, there is complete immunity for any child of 10 or 11 for any offence.”
“There was a fundamental misunderstanding of what the minimum age of criminal responsibility is. The interventions were consistently about diversion instead of putting people into prison. That happens under the existing law because the minimum age of criminal responsibility does not relate to how an offender is dealt with once there is a case against them but is the minimum floor at which an offender can enter the criminal justice system. The vast majority of young people aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or even 15 are —”
“In any case, what I have heard is sufficient. <BR /> <BR />There has been a fundamental misunderstanding in the Chamber about what the minimum age of criminal responsibility is. I genuinely believe that, if a responsible legislature were going to make such a significant change, the place would have been full. Westminster or the Dáil would be full. This place is half empty.”
“The record will show that I was about three or four minutes late.”
“At the very core of my values is putting victims and public protection first; it would go against every fibre of my being to do anything less. Some debates in the Chamber are administrative, technical or abstract. This one was not. This debate was going to fundamentally change our justice system; it went to the heart of public safety, of victims having accountability and of the Police Service and Public Prosecution Service being able to prove or disprove an offence. Frankly, it was in danger of confusing compassion and dangerous naivety. <BR /> <BR />There is nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge, and what I have heard tonight demonstrates, I am afraid, a little knowledge. There have been fundamental misunderstandings of what the minimum age of criminal responsibility —.”
“I stood in the middle of the Newtownards Road confronting people who were wearing masks, with no police presence and surrounded by 50 or 60 men. Nobody uses me, nobody intimidates me and I always stand for victims.”
“The fundamental problem with that statistically is that it does not have a control sample. You are saying that someone who commits an offence will naturally have a propensity to commit more offences and, therefore, by definition, will be more likely to be in the criminal justice system in the future. It is a vacuous argument. <BR /> <BR />You talked about irresponsibility. Frankly, it is irresponsible to pass a law that you do not understand.”
“The most important thing is that we think of the public rather than about bringing along people in this place. <BR /> <BR />Do you have any concern, as I do, about something as nonsensical as attempted murder or rape being prosecutable but not conspiracy to murder or rape or aiding and abetting murder or rape? How is that fair? How does that work?”
“There is a real danger that the young person could be penalised by being over-charged. Many cases are borderline between assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm or between grievous bodily harm and attempted murder. The PPS may run with the higher charge, so there is no accountability. <BR /> <BR />An issue that is linked to that is that the alternative verdict to a murder charge is often manslaughter. How would that work in this case? Would the verdict of manslaughter not be available to the young person? That is disadvantageous to the defendant.”
“The Member makes a good point that there are offences that are incomplete offences short of murder. Attempted murder is included, but the Member is quite right to say that conspiracy to murder is not. There is a recent example — I will be brief — of a child being prosecuted in England for aiding and abetting the rape of two schoolchildren. Under amendment No 82, the child could not be prosecuted for that but could be prosecuted for attempted rape. That distinction is simply irrational.”
“— when it comes to a minor offence, but not one —.”
“I have not finished yet. <BR /> <BR />— understands —”
“The logical conclusion is that some offences have been chosen not because the young person understands the difference between right and wrong but because of the outrage that the public would have if there were immunity, and that a child —”
“I want to get absolute clarity, because the Justice Minister made the point that the police can still intervene if someone is nine. Yes, under legislation on children, they can detain a child for their welfare, but they cannot interview them under caution, take samples or do a DNA swab to prove what is the victim's DNA and what matches the suspect's DNA. All those things are vital to getting accountability in a case where a young person denies a serious offence. Those things will not be possible under your amendment.”
“Some of those examples demonstrate that the youth justice system is diversionary, proportionate, compassionate and flexible, yet we are about to throw the baby out with the bathwater and create a situation where, if a serious offence, such as petrol bombing a migrant's house, leaving all members of a family with grievous bodily harm injuries, were to be committed, there would be no option for the police to arrest, investigate or prosecute. Do you accept that what you are demonstrating is that the youth justice system, as it stands, is flexible, compassionate and proportionate?”
“The Member talks about a framework for accountability. Does she accept that if her amendment passes, the law would not permit a prosecution, even if the victim of a sexual offence, outside of attempted rape, wants a prosecution? Does she accept that the law would not, in any way, give the victim a voice? Yes or no?”
“I look forward to a robust debate. <BR /> <BR />You made two points. The first was that we have an excellent youth justice system. I agree that it is largely diversionary. We are about to change that by precluding criminal investigation for young people. You said that some 10-year-olds know right from wrong. One of your amendments would mean that, if a 10-year-old committed murder, such as in the case of what happened to James Bulger, the police could not arrest the young person, take anyone to court or even investigate it. How can that be right if children know right from wrong?”
“Does the Minister agree that although most of us feel safest in our home, the home is where the victims of domestic violence are most at risk? Will he continue to press the case and look at every option, including some of the proposals currently going through in England and Wales, to make sure that the victims of domestic violence who live in social housing can either stay in their home instead of the perpetrator or get fast-tracked access to another home?”
“We are part of the fifth- or sixth-largest country in terms of military might, which provides our national security. I give Mr Harris this advice: instead of a blueprint for Irish unity, you should produce a blueprint for national security for the Irish Republic, because it still relies on the United Kingdom's military prowess to keep it safe. <BR /> <BR />I believe in Northern Ireland. I believe in its people. They are a great people. This is a great place that has a great future in the United Kingdom. We can make it a prosperous place for all.”
“What the political class and the media commentariat elites do not get is that most people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland just want things done. They want access to a GP. They want access to a scan when they need it. They want a good place for their child at school. They need jobs, opportunities and skills. Those are the things that make people tick. Unfortunately, however, the bubble that some people live in leads them to think that people spring out of bed in the morning and think of constitutional change. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland is at its most peaceful in 50 years. Bombings, shootings and public disorder are at their lowest level for 50 years. Economically, we are part of the fifth- or six-largest country on earth, which gives us economic security.”
“The Irish Republic is not simply saying, "We respect your right to have a vote, and, if that comes, we will have a vote down south"; no, it is actively attempting to change the constitution. Those on the nationalist and republican side have chastised UK Governments and Prime Ministers if they have dared to say that they are pro-unionist. Once again, we see double standards. <BR /> <BR />I have no fear of Mr Harris's blueprint, and nor do I fear anyone who seeks to make the case for a united Ireland. The reality is that the people of Northern Ireland withstood a murderous bombing and shooting campaign from republicans and an equally bad one from loyalists. That did not change their mind. Every opinion poll shows that there is no increase in support for a united Ireland.”