Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I welcome Sonya McMullan, the Women's Aid Federation regional services manager, to the meeting. Thank you for coming. We are pleased to be able to do this face-to-face, although socially distanced, of course. We very much appreciate your coming to the meeting. The federation's written submission is very detailed and very impressive, and we will pick up on that during the evidence session. The session will be recorded by Hansard, and the transcript will be published on the Committee's web page. I hand over to you to give us a brief overview, after which members will get into specific questions on your submission.

Ms Sonya McMullan (Women's Aid Federation Northern Ireland): Thank you very much, Chair and members, for inviting me to come along today. I thought it would be easier to come in person. I will be speaking on behalf of the nine local Women's Aid groups this morning. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Justice Minister for her swift action in returning the legislation in the absence of the Assembly, and the Department of Justice for all the work that it did to try to get the legislation through Westminster.

The consultation on coercive control closed on 26 April 2016, so it has been over four years since we formally consulted on the issues. Much time has passed, so Women's Aid thinks that it is useful to look at the other jurisdictions, how we have moved on and what good practice has developed there. Our response to the Justice Committee was a very comprehensive document, as you can see. Given the opportunity, we wanted to make sure that we got everything in there. It has been informed by our local groups across Northern Ireland, staff, volunteers and consultation with our member services and survivors, including in a survey that was conducted very recently — the women's voices survey. It is really important for Women's Aid, in all the work that we do, that we consult with women, children and young people in order to put their voices front and centre. I urge the Committee to take some time to read through that survey, because it reflects the lived experience of women and what they want from a Bill and a robust criminal justice system.

Each Women's Aid group across Northern Ireland offers a range of specialist services for children and young people, as I am sure most of you are aware. Last year, we housed 654 women and 421 children in our refuge and accommodation services and 6,000 women and over 6,000 children in our outreach support, which allows them to stay in their own homes. However, there were 381 women who could not access a refuge because it was full. In the context of domestic violence in Northern Ireland, sitting before a Justice Committee, we have to recognise that, last year, PSNI statistics for domestic violence-related crimes were 16% of all crime in Northern Ireland. That is shocking; there are more domestic abuse offences than thefts, burglaries, drug offences and possession of weapons offences put together. That is really concerning, because if we look at domestic violence in relation to the PSNI statistics, it is only the tip of the iceberg; we know that not everyone lifts the phone to report it. To put that in context, year-on-year, our statistics are going up, but we welcome the fact that more people feel that they can engage with the police service; that is really important.

Women's Aid across Northern Ireland welcomes the Bill. As I said, we have campaigned for many years on this, but we are also aware that more robust measures are being put in place through the Domestic Abuse Bill that is currently going through Westminster. It is deemed as an opportunity to transform lives and restore confidence in the legal system for victims and survivors. That is a pretty big statement about what it is hoped that that Bill will do. We call on all Government Departments to take ownership of the key issues because, without their support, no reforms to domestic violence and abuse legislation will work.

It is paramount that we look at housing, through the Department for Communities. It provides the largest amount of funding for domestic violence services in Northern Ireland, through Supporting People and through our refuges and outreach services. The Department of Justice does not currently fund any domestic violence-specific services. The Department of Health funds the federation that I work for at the moment, for which we are very grateful, but that will end at the end of March. Sustainable funding is a big thing, but it needs to cross Departments. Every document that has been produced over the last 10 to 20 years about reforms of domestic violence and abuse offences and, indeed, sexual offences, comes back to education, prevention and early intervention. That is really key. We call on all Departments to work together. Our strategy has been put together by the Department of Health and the Department of Justice, but everybody needs to take responsibility for domestic violence. We really feel that, because this Bill could transform the lives of all victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, and that is what we really want as well.

As I said, sustainable funding is needed to enable life-saving specialist services. At the moment, it is really difficult for the funding sector. As I said, the funding for the federation that I work for will be up at the end of March, and it is so hard working year-on-year. Previously, when I worked on the helpline, it was the same until the service went out for tender. It was year-on-year as well. We really need a commitment, because investment now will save money later, without a shadow of a doubt.

We ask the Justice Committee to consider the following omissions from the proposed legislation. You asked whether there were any other legislative or non-legislative approaches to tackling domestic abuse that are not currently in place. We would like you to look at the statutory gendered definition of domestic violence and abuse. It would and should explicitly name the gendered nature of domestic abuse to truly reflect the reality of the crime. We would really like you to consider this as, at present, we are the only part of the UK that does not recognise domestic violence and abuse as a gendered crime. We call on you to recognise violence against women and girls and have a strategy to acknowledge this. The Home Office in England has a four-year strategy for violence against women and girls, Scotland has the Equally Safe strategy to eradicate violence against women and girls, and in Wales they have the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. So we are the only part, again, of the UK that is not looking at that.

We will continue to actively campaign for a domestic abuse commissioner, and we feel that that is essential. It is an accountable mechanism for scrutinising legislation, policy, practice, and commissioning and provision of services. Certainly during COVID-19 we have seen, liaising with the sector in England and Wales, how good the provision of the commissioner has been. All of the services speak to the commissioner once a week, and it has been key in securing the £76 million of emergency COVID money for specialist domestic violence services in England and Wales. We will continue to campaign for that. If we are looking at, for example, the introduction of domestic homicide reviews, the piloting of domestic violence courts and even the roll-out of this legislation, having a commissioner, a scrutiny committee or something like that to be able to oversee that and roll that out would be to the benefit of the Assembly, I feel, as well as to the benefit of the domestic violence and abuse sector.

We know that reforms to the family court are not in the Bill, but the Westminster Government last year had a three-month review of the family court, and we feel in Northern Ireland that it really is essential. That review was built on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill with a panel of experts. The aim was to ensure that the courts work in the explicit interest of the children, and we need to deliver a safe family court. Domestic violence does not end at that point of separation, and I think we all know that. Many women never reach the criminal court but are in the family court many times, and there should also be special protection measures there. If someone is a vulnerable and intimidated witness in a criminal court, they are also a vulnerable and intimidated witness in a family court and in civil proceedings, so we would appreciate looking at those special measures and those protections. Child contact is a huge issue, and we need a systematic change to child contact with a perpetrator of domestic violence. Of course, the safety of the child during contact is essential.

On powers to deal with domestic abuse, we are really encouraged that the Department of Justice is looking at the consideration of the domestic abuse protection orders and notices. Currently, in Northern Ireland, there is none of that emergency provision to remove a perpetrator from the home for 24 hours, and we would really welcome the introduction of those orders and notices. The domestic violence protection orders and notices have been in place for over 10 years and have come in for major criticism in some of their evaluations. It is something new, and it is being piloted at the moment, but it would fit really well to have all of those remedies in place, including non-molestation orders, occupation orders, restraining orders and undertakings and then having the notices and orders as well.

We really think that they are robust . If they are breached, that constitutes a criminal offence. They also take into consideration coercive and controlling behaviour. If you are bringing in a new order and we are changing the legislation, it is really important that the offence is not just a physical offence. We welcome your views on that.

Housing is mentioned in the Domestic Abuse Bill going through Westminster. We know that we have different legislation and policies here and that there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach, but there should be ring-fencing of funding for refuge services. England and Wales are looking at secure tenancies for those fleeing domestic violence and abuse. Domestic violence is one of the major causes of homelessness. At the beginning, I said that 381 women could not get refuge last year because the refuges were full. The realisation is that home still is not a safe place, even with the legal remedies available to remove people from the home. Home sometimes is just not safe, and you will need refuge.

There are other issues with the investigation and prosecution of new offences. We call for more resources. As I said previously, investing now can save you so much money later. Police forces in England, Scotland and Wales have all rolled out Domestic Abuse Matters training. That has been costly, but it is a huge investment that each of the police forces is making. Our police force really needs to roll out some training, not just for first responders but for all its members. We go to Garnerville, where we are involved in the training of new recruits. It is for just an hour, but we really appreciate it and have been doing it for many years.

There is a need for better evidence to be produced in cases to enable more cases to go through the criminal justice system. I have been in Women's Aid for over 20 years, and we are still talking about people withdrawing from and not engaging in the system. Why is that? If we look at the Gillen review of serious sexual offences, for example, a lot of the recommendations in his report are very valid, and they are relevant to domestic violence cases as well. One is the independent advocate. We have had the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) in place for over 10 years, but we do not have independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs). IDVAs are still not in place. Women's Aid takes on the role, but obviously we do not get paid for it. The role of an independent advocate is to support a victim who is a witness in a case. We feel — there is research to back it up — that having IDVAs will encourage fewer withdrawals.

A lot of training will be involved upon the introduction of the new offence of domestic abuse to include physical and psychological harm. If we look at the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) recommendations, we can see that, 10 years ago, it was looking at introducing IDVAs, piloting domestic violence courts and PSNI training, as well as getting the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to review case files. Fast-forward to last year's CJINI recommendations, and it is still saying the same things, because that is good practice and what we need in order to instil confidence in people that we have a good criminal justice system. That is really what we want, and it is what we all have an opportunity to do now here.

We also welcome the stalking legislation. The Minister has talked about looking at that later in the year, and also at fatal and non-fatal strangulation. A steering group will be meeting soon, which we welcome. It would be remiss of me not to mention Operation Encompass as well.

I have probably gone over my 10 minutes, but thank you very much for the opportunity. We have drilled down into the Bill and have provided responses to the specific clauses. I am happy to take questions from the Committee. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Sonya, thank you. I appreciate your overview of the work that the organisation does and your general commentary on the Bill and its intentions.

I will start. Forgive me for being quite clinical about the clauses. Ultimately, we are about trying to get the best legislation through the Assembly. I will try to keep the discussion as focused as we can on what the various clauses propose and pick up on some of the comments that you made.

The first one that I will ask about is the statutory gender definition and why Women's Aid feel that it needs to be defined as women and girls. The Westminster legislation that is going through is gender-neutral, and we have received other submissions that advocate that a gender-neutral position be taken on it. Can you tell me why there is a need for it to be women and girls? I read your submission, and I know that you were citing the Istanbul convention and so on around that, but just so that I know, why would that be necessary in legislation to make effective law that can then lead to prosecution?

Ms McMullan: If we are looking at look practice, I stated that England, Scotland and Wales recognise violence against women and girls. We are the only part of the UK that does not, and it is a gendered form of violence. If we look at other forms, such as honour-based violence, female genital mutilation and all of these things, we are not taking them into account in Northern Ireland. That is what a lot of the other strategies introduced in the other jurisdictions do. We really feel that domestic abuse is a form of violence against women.

It is cause and consequence of women's inequality, and not only are women far more likely to be victims with men as perpetrators, but they are also overwhelmingly likely to experience that fear. It is really important that we look at our police statistics, which say that 69% of victims are female and 31% are male, but if we drill in and look at the offenders then 86% of the offenders are male and 12% are female. Therefore, it is really important that we look at statistics and that we refer to them correctly. At the moment, our statistics are slightly skewed because there are a lot of cases where police will go out to a house and a man will say, "Well, she hit me", and she will say, "No, he hit me". Therefore, there is no evidence to show who is violent. We have cases where people have non-molestation orders out against each other while they are living in the same home, so it is skewing the records there as well.

We really think that it is time for our Assembly to look at complying with the Istanbul convention and with other human rights legislations. We have had a gender-neutral policy in Northern Ireland for forever. I worked on the 24-hour domestic and sexual violence helpline for over 20 years, and I spoke to lots of male callers over the years. They were very genuine victims of domestic abuse. It is not about taking away from that, but it is about the recognition of domestic abuse as being a gendered crime, and it is. We feel that the Assembly has never really taken that on board. Why else would England, Scotland and Wales invest — £10 million has been invested in the Home Office's four-year strategy? If we look at sexual offences, for example, the perpetrators are more often male as well. It is not about a hierarchy of victims with one group deserving of more, it is just about that recognition that it is a gender-based crime around power and equality.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I am trying to square the issue around recognition with the issue around what would be an effective law that would ensure that people can be prosecuted. I am just trying to see whether there is any evidence to say that, if it were a gender-neutral law, women would be less likely to get protection and prosecutions secured under the current wording.

I am sympathetic to what you are saying, and I can understand it, but I am trying to square off how we can deal with capturing men who have suffered domestic abuse, as well as the evidence that we have around gay, bisexual and transgender victims and so on. Does the legislation need to start specifying all of the different genders, and then, within that, the sexual identity orientations that are reflected in the domestic abuse that takes place?

Ms McMullan: I think that if the Westminster Bill is looking at a gender-neutral definition to include everyone, then we totally appreciate where it is coming from on that. However, they have the backup of an individual strategy, so is that an opportunity? Do we go for a gender-neutral definition in our legislation, but we back it up with having an individual strategy to recognise violence against women and girls?

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): OK. All of the evidence —

Ms McMullan: That is what all the other —.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): — shows that, for the vast majority of these cases, it is women- or girl-centred, and it is right to make that point.

Ms McMullan: It is very important to recognise all of the other minority groups that you have stated as well. Absolutely, and it should not be to the detriment of another group.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): With regard to the domestic abuse commissioner and the call to have a stand-alone commissioner, I have two questions that I want to ask. Is that a stand-alone commissioner for Northern Ireland? Would it expand the scope of a domestic abuse commissioner at a UK-wide level that would include Northern Ireland? I know that your paper cites the work of the Victims' Commissioner in England and Wales. Is there scope in Northern Ireland to widen the scope of the Victims' Commissioner here as well? I am keen to get your thoughts on that.

Ms McMullan: We would welcome further discussion on all of that. Our Victims' Commissioner in Northern Ireland is only troubles-related. I follow the work of Dame Vera Baird, the Victims' Commissioner in England. She is fabulous and a great champion for all victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, so, of course, that is an avenue worth pursuing. There is one Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales. Scotland does not have one, but they have quite robust remedies and a very good link with Government and a Minister with regard to domestic abuse.

Really, it is about overseeing, scrutiny and someone to go to. We know that it is a lot of money. For example, the Justice Minister had looked at over £1 million for an office for a domestic abuse commissioner, but is about having that go-to person. There is so much going on, and we are quite behind with regard to legislation and our protection orders and notices. They came in to place in England and Wales 10 years ago. We have a lot of catching up to do, given the absence of the Assembly as well.

We would be open to discussion and, with regard to the role of our Victims' Commissioner, it is something that I had not thought about. I know that we are getting a mental health champion. We have an Older People’s Commissioner and a Commissioner for Children and Young People. It is about that scrutiny and being able to oversee. The implementation of this Bill, for example, is to make sure that all the training and resources are there. As I said, during COVID-19, the commissioner has been essential in securing extra money for domestic abuse services in England and Wales.

We have also asked ourselves a few questions. It is a part-time post; it was a three-day-week post originally, and since COVID-19, it has been extended to a four-day-week post. That is interesting. It does not necessarily need to be a full-time post; it could be part-time.

With regard to integrating it into England and Wales, it would be difficult. Our legislation is different. We have so many things that are different, especially around housing, local authorities and all of that. Everything is a little bit different in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, so I do not know whether it would integrate smoothly. We are really open to conversations. Linda, we discussed different options and models of this previously and looking at a scrutiny committee, or something like that. We feel that we need something there to oversee the implementation, especially with new legislation, and hold people to account. That is about holding the voluntary sector to account as well as the statutory sector. A lot of work will be going on now with the introduction of the legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): You mentioned the stalking legislation. There has been some commentary that this Bill should have included that. Obviously, it is open for the Committee to bring forward amendments, if so desired. I am keen to know your view. Are you content? Maybe that is not the right phrase, but the Minister has said that there will be a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation on stalking. Would it be the preference of Women's Aid to go with separate, stand-alone legislation or to have legislation included in this Bill?

Ms McMullan: We were really happy to hear the Justice Minister mention stalking legislation in the last debate. There is a huge correlation between stalking, coercive control and domestic violence and abuse. A lot of the media portrayal would be that it is perpetrated by strangers and crazy people, and that it affects only celebrities. However, Allison Morris and other people came forward this year and told their stories of stalking.

We are content for it to be in separate legislation. We are keen for the stalking protection orders to be rolled out in Northern Ireland as well. However, those orders are only as good as the training of the Police Service in their implementation. It is another huge piece of work to roll that out for our police force. We are content that we move on with that, and if it is separate legislation, that is OK.

We are aware of the mandate of the Assembly and the time ticking away, but things seem to be moving swiftly, if we look at the introduction of the Bill even during COVID. We are encouraged by how quickly the Department of Justice is moving on the thing, so we would be happy with [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I know. We are seeking to expedite our Committee role in half the normal time to help that process. I want to bring in other members, then there may be some aspects of the clauses that I want to pick up on. Linda, you want to come in, there are four members on the conference call, and I will come to them shortly.

Ms Dillon: I have just a couple of points, Sonya. We had that conversation around a commissioner. I am not opposed to the idea of a commissioner. I just want to scope out in a wee bit more detail whether that is the best option. I have said that I do not believe that our all-party groups are used to best effect. Is that an avenue that could provide oversight or scrutiny on the implementation? An awful lot of implementation has to be scrutinised and a close eye kept on it. That is important because the value of any legislation or policy is its implementation, not the legislation itself. A conversation that I have had around many pieces of legislation is that they are not great if they are not implemented correctly. You are 100% on the button in saying that the implementation has to be scrutinised effectively.

I have raised repeatedly the issue of training the PSNI, and our members on the Policing Board have as well. I think that there will be a focus on that in the Policing Board. There is good opportunity there. There are different meetings of the Policing Board, not just the public meeting. There are also the committee meetings and the private Policing Board full board meetings. Those are good places to scrutinise the PSNI end of it — how officers are trained and how effectively they implement the legislation.

I am concerned that some of the legislation and tools that are already in place are not being used correctly because officers, or the PSNI as an organisation, do not fully understand them and how they could be used to best effect. It is important that that work is done. The way that it is done between the judiciary and PSNI is also important, with everybody understanding their role.

I was interested in what you said about the family courts, and I find it in the non-molestation orders as well, that, repeatedly, victims are brought back to court. That is a failure of the PPS in the way that it represents victims.

There is a work to be done on that. It is a scrutiny role, and we should keep an eye on it. Those are all things that need to be looked at.

Operation Encompass is something that I have raised, Sonya, even prior to this. In my previous role on the Policing Board, I asked the PSNI where the legislative gap exists, and we are waiting for information on that. If there is such a gap, is there an amendment that we can make to this legislation, or can it be done in some other way, to ensure that Operation Encompass can be rolled out here?

It is extremely important that, when a young person is the victim of, or witnesses to, domestic abuse in the home, that information is passed on to their school the next morning before the child comes in, as that will make all the difference to how they are treated. If their uniform is not right, if they have had nothing to eat, if their homework is not done, or if they are not in good form, that will make a world of difference to a child who lives in a home where domestic abuse goes on. It is all part of it, and it is as important as any other provision. I will keep a focus on that part of it, because it is important that we get something in place on that.

In the Twenty-six Counties, we inserted a provision for special leave for victims of domestic abuse. An amendment to that effect is something that the Committee should look at. We asked the Finance Minister whether he would be prepared to look at it for Civil Service staff. That is a first step, but we would like it to be much wider. It would be an inequity if only some people, in some jobs, were entitled to it. It is important that we look at that.

I have repeatedly raised the issue of the affordability of non-molestation orders for the working poor. If they are not already poor when they are in the relationship, many women become poor when they try to leave. That is something that we need to keep a close eye on, as well.

As you may already know, the Committee has written to the Minister for Communities to ask that she look at the points system for housing and homelessness. Currently, no points are awarded for intimidation if you are a victim of domestic abuse. However, if you are the victim of sectarian, religious or racist intimidation, or any other form of intimidation, you will get points, yet you will not get points for being a victim of domestic abuse, even though it is a form of intimidation. We have asked the Minister to look at that. We have not received a full response yet. I am not sure whether it will require a policy change or legislation, but it is something that we will follow up. It falls within DFC's remit, and we will chase it up. It is important for us to know that it is being dealt with, because it is an element of this.

The Chair has already queried whether this should be restricted to violence against women and girls. I am not sure whether this is the right place for that. I not opposed to it nor am I for it, but I am sure that you are right on the point that there needs to be some sort of strategy in place. From all the stuff that has come forward from Justice Gillen's review on serious sexual offences, from the Domestic Abuse Bill, and from the evidence on coercive control and stalking, we know that most perpetrators are male, regardless of whether the victims are male or female.

Ms McMullan: Yes.

Ms Dillon: There needs to be something done about that. Women are more likely to be victims of many crimes. A strategy is, potentially, the better way to proceed. This is much greater than just domestic abuse or this legislation. The Committee would certainly be interested in looking at that. To be fair, how we deal with it may involve all Committees, or at least a number of them. It is something that we should look at.

I am concerned about the protection orders and notices. Some of the things that we are asking for are things that the Minister has said she will bring in as secondary legislation. The intention is, possibly, to bring that through in the miscellaneous provisions Bill. I had raised this before, and if we can be certain that a miscellaneous provisions Bill is to be brought through the Assembly, that is fine. However, we do not have much time left in this mandate, and the Committee already has a substantial amount of work. Therefore I would like some reassurance from the Minister. Again, that is something for us to follow up.

I agree that an independent advocate is essential, even if only to help victims to understand the system, how it works, how the PPS works, the PSNI's role, and the role of the legal representative, because it is extremely difficult for any victim. To be fair, maybe it is something that can be looked at in a much wider context, but we know that this type of crime has a low rate of getting to court. For that reason, we do need to put something in place. There has to be somebody or something in place to assist the victims, as that is vital in increasing the numbers of people who are brought to court to face the judicial system and, hopefully, the punishment that they deserve.

I have raised, in the Chamber and at the Committee, one of our biggest challenges: society does not see domestic abuse as a community problem. They do not see it as a problem for society; they see it as a problem in someone's home. It is their issue, not ours. Even people who should view it as a societal problem do not. People who are very aware of domestic abuse, such as victims, people who support victims and women's groups, do not seem to recognise it as being a societal and community problem and a crime against the community and society, not just something that happens in the home that is the business of those in that home.

We have a role to play in that, as does the Minister. We should push harder to ensure that people understand that a crime that happens in the home is no different from someone being attacked on the street. Actually, the suffering is worse, because the perpetrator is the very person who is supposed to protect them, supposed to love and care for them, and they are in the place — their own home — that is supposed to be the most safe. It is something that we, as a Committee, need to do more work to highlight and, certainly, the Minister needs to look at the issue.

I do not have any questions, Sonya. Your brief and the conversations that we have had highlight your issues. I just wanted to give you some reassurance about the issues that we, as a Committee, hope to take up. I will focus on this as a member of the Committee and a spokesperson on justice.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thank you, Linda. Paul Frew has indicated that he wants to ask a question. I encourage you to keep it to the legislation and the clauses and to seek specific responses from Sonya. I will appreciate that.

Mr Frew: You know me, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I do.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much and welcome to the Committee. I cannot see you in person, but I can hear you loud and clear. First, I will go into your concerns. I probably do not agree with your belief that clause 12 — defence on grounds of reasonableness — should be removed. Reasonableness should be the defence mechanism in most laws, because you do not want to make it too arduous or penalise people and have the law used as a weapon against them. There has to be some sort of reasonableness clause.

Why have you come to the determination that that clause should be removed?

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Sonya, hopefully, you caught that. Clause 12 is defence on the grounds of reasonableness.

Ms McMullan: We understand why it was drafted to go into the legislation. It is there to protect family members. If, for example, someone has dementia or something like that, they may be confined or controlled, so it may be in their interest. We are concerned that the defence will use it and that it will be manipulated and used by abusers. That is it, really. It is really possible for a perpetrator to present as a reasonable person, as we know. There is an awful lot of manipulation by perpetrators in domestic violence and abuse. We feel that that does not outweigh the other aspect. It is a great concern to Women's Aid, and the clause not having reasonable safeguards is why we are calling for it to be removed, because they have not been outlined. What safeguards could be put in place to protect victims of domestic violence? Look at mental health, for example. As someone who has supported many women for many years, I know that not one person who has spoken to me has not lost their sense of self and has not had poor mental health. That is often used against them. We have concerns that it will be used by the defence. In consultation with some defence lawyers, they said, "Yes, of course it will be". It will be used to their benefit. That is why we call for it to be removed, and, if it is not to be removed, we call for an outline of detailed safeguards that would be put in place and that are very specific to ensuring safety in that reasonable person test.

Mr Frew: So, you would not be against tightening up the grounds of reasonableness as opposed to removing the clause completely.

Ms McMullan: We are calling for it to be removed; that is our statement, and that is what we say in our collective response from the whole of Women's Aid. However, if it is to remain, we would want to have safeguards. We would want to know what they would look like to make sure that we keep women safe with the clause on the grounds of reasonableness.

Mr Frew: OK. It strikes me that a lot of this law will be enacted through a process and series of evidence-gathering sessions anyway because of the very nature of domestic violence and the operation of the police in gathering evidence, especially in coercive control situations. You can understand that it is not just a one-off instance that is taken through court. Is that not a defence to the issues that you raise about the clause where a very shrewd perpetrator is trying to use any grounds of reasonableness defence? Every solicitor and barrister in the country will try to defend their client, ie the perpetrator — that is the reality — but surely a build-up of evidence can erode that defence.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Sorry, Paul. It is a bit muffled at our end. Could you just summarise and make that point concisely and clearly for us?

Mr Frew: Surely the gathering of a diary of evidence on domestic violence and coercive and controlling behaviour will erode a perpetrator's grounds of reasonableness defence.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): So, you mean a series of offences when you say "diary".

Mr Frew: Yes. The police will probably have to gather evidence a multitude of times.

Ms McMullan: Thank you, Paul. I think that I have got that. It really goes back to those safeguards. There is no guarantee that a diary of evidence that is gathered on coercive and controlling behaviours would be enough here, because we do not have regulations or safeguards. We do not know what that will look like, so, until we have seen what those safeguards would be, how do you prove it? We are concerned and would like to know what safeguards would formally be put in place through that clause.

Mr Frew: You have an issue with clause 7(2)(c), which provides for sending a notice to be served by post to the person's proper address. Can you explain why that is a massive problem?

Ms McMullan: That is just historical, Paul, to be honest. People have been served orders via post and never received them and then women do not know when the order is in place or when it has started. That is a very historical issue with Women's Aid that has been going on for many years. That person needs to be handed the order. They need to be given and read a specific clause on the seriousness of the issue. Sending something by second-class post does not really, for us, emphasise the importance of that.

Mr Frew: Thank you. I have thought about stalking legislation a lot, and, whilst I believe that it is neater to do two separate pieces of legislation, there is massive overlap between coercive control, stalking and domestic violence. The problem that I see with adding a clause on stalking to the Bill is that the domestic abuse offence itself deems that you have to be personally connected to each other at the time. So, to me, you are having to create yet another offence in the Domestic Abuse Bill. Of course, something can be defined, but what is your feeling on that? Could we insert a simple clause now to try to enhance protection for stalking victims until we get to a point where we have a stalking Bill?

Ms McMullan: Thank you, Paul. I think that stalking legislation has to be relevant for everyone, not just people who are related and connected according to the definition in the Domestic Abuse Bill. So, it would have to be legislation on stalking that was applicable for everybody, including strangers, as mentioned. It is whatever is the best. I suppose that is what we are thinking. Sometimes less haste is needed. It is sometimes better to sit back and reflect. We have waited quite a long time for this legislation, so let us get it right. We are quite happy for it to go through as separate legislation and to include the stalking protection orders and notices as well. At the moment, we have the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which is very outdated and does not meet the needs of the people who are harassed and stalked at this time. We do not have anything that fits, but it is around making that connection. I think that the separate legislation would probably be more beneficial and more robust, but, again, it is about the time and the mandate of this Assembly. Time is ticking away, so that is of grave concern for us.

Mr Frew: I agree. We need to have maybe some sort of clause in the Domestic Abuse Bill to cover that in the interim period.

I will not go into the housing issue, because it is a no-brainer. We need some sort of clause that helps victims to get housing and that will prohibit domestic violence and allow the victim to remove themselves from their abusive environment. That is a no-brainer, so I will not go into it.

I am interested in this point, so, finally, I want to talk about the strangulation offence and why you consider that to need a stand-alone clause.

Ms McMullan: Before COVID, Foyle Women's Aid had a two-day conference, which was opened up to the Public Prosecution Service, legal prosecutors and so on. We had also been approached by Rape Crisis in the South to ask whether we wanted to come together to look at a change in legislation. Strangulation is not perceived to be as serious as it is. Cath White is the clinical director of St Mary's sexual assault referral centre in Manchester. It did robust research that monitored a number of people who were victims of non-fatal strangulation. The research showed that a high percentage ended up dying by strangulation.

Our DASH forms and the risk assessment tools that we have at the moment need to be changed. It is about that heightened level; if just that one thing is ticked — somebody being choked or having hands put around their neck — that should get you through to a MARAC because of the high risk. It is likely to cause serious injury or death, it is perceived by the victim as a direct threat to their life, and it is a predictor of future homicide. That is how serious it is. We have seen the rough sex defence, and many of those cases have come through of late as well. Many of them have been where people have been in a relationship with forms of domestic violence. We have to look at intimate partner sexual violence as well because there is not enough awareness of that.

The document that we provided to the Committee outlined the New Zealand law on strangulation and showed some of the changes that are being made. The Department of Justice invited me to attend a steering group to start looking at that. In the last debate on the Bill, the Justice Minister mentioned that she was interested in starting a conversation about it. It is part of the bigger picture. There is an awful lot of implementation of legislation in relation to policy and good practice that Northern Ireland has to catch up on. Certainly, we want to start the discussion about changing the laws on strangulation in Northern Ireland.

Mr Frew: We could pick up on the New Zealand law on strangulation and have a deeper look at it. Thank you very much, Sonya.

Miss Woods: Paul has been looking at my questions; he has asked both of them.

Thank you for coming today. I agree with a number of points, especially about the need for cross-departmental working. I see a massive role for education as well. As you know, we need to start discussing these things in schools. We need to talk about what healthy relationships are and what the signs are. That goes back to raising awareness of what we need to do to tackle the subject.

I want to go back to the issue of a commissioner, a post, a scrutiny Committee or a critical friend of the Department and involving statutory agencies as well as the sector. In the debate on the Bill's Second Stage, Doug Beattie called for a crime commissioner. Would you support that or do you see a specific need for a domestic abuse commissioner?

Ms McMullan: You have to look at what a crime commissioner would look like, what their remit would be and how much time would be devoted to domestic violence or, indeed, the wider spectrum of domestic and sexual violence offences. We are very open to discussions about different models. We understand the financial constraints on the Assembly and the resourcing issues. We are open to having a conversation, and we are very willing to engage on the subject.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales has a big office and quite a lot of staff. Our population is a lot smaller. The issues could sit within the remit of a commissioner, but you would need someone who is very skilled and knowledgeable about all of the issues around domestic violence and abuse. That is what we would call for. We are certainly up for conversations on what that would look like. It does not have to be the same as it is in England and Wales. We could have our own unique commissioner.

Miss Woods: Would you like to see strangulation included in the Bill, perhaps in clause 2, as part of the definition of domestic abuse?

Ms McMullan: The clause also talks about sexual violence, so it could be introduced there, but, again, would that be to the detriment of stronger, separate legislation? It goes back to the mandate, timing and how long that would take. I know that other jurisdictions are also looking at that. It is about looking at them, engaging and seeing how far down the road they are. We would welcome any addition. However, the issue is how it would slow up that legislation. It is really all about timing. We are at the very early stage of our discussions on non-fatal and fatal strangulation, and we are looking at research from other parts of world. I had not thought about it being introduced in this Bill. We thought that it would be separate because we have not had that consultation. The steering group will begin in the coming weeks and months. We are at the very early stages. It would probably hold up the process a lot because it is not as far down the line as other pieces of work.

Miss Woods: Do you think that the Bill is sufficient with regard to penalty levels, the offences for which there can be convictions and aggravators?

Ms McMullan: Yes. We think that it is sufficient. There is concern about the criminalisation of young people. We stated that when young people perpetrate unhealthy behaviours against each other, again, that goes back to education. You do not want to criminalise a 17-year-old. It is about education and healthy relationships programmes. What is available for a young person now in Northern Ireland if they identify with challenging behaviours and want support? We need to put that support in place as well.

I go back to looking at the disposal of crimes. If someone gets a sentence of less than six months and goes to prison, what work will be done with them on their challenging behaviours and the way in which they have lived their life? They will probably be worse when they come out of prison. Disposals, sentencing and all those issues need to be considered. We have a section in there — I took it out and put it back in — about our non-court-mandated and court-mandated perpetrator programmes. We have not had an awful lot of investment in them over the past number of years. Money should never be taken away from victims to be put into a perpetrator programme, but we need to look at all that, starting with our early intervention and healthy relationships programmes. We need to do all that through risk assessment conferences.

Many children do not know what a healthy relationship looks like. They do not live in homes where there are good, healthy relationships, which look at values, trust, equality, consent — all those issues. Our Helping Hands programme in primary schools is a great success with the Department of Education. We are redoing our healthy relationships programme for post-primary schools. However, the reality is that women who were in refuges as children are still returning as adults. We are letting people down. We really, really are. It all goes back to education. Again, if we look at the Gillen report, the CJINI report, and all the recommendations of all those reports, we see that they all come back to education.

Miss Woods: Finally, do you think that there is enough in the Bill to tackle domestic abuse and coercive control behaviours on digital platforms? Does a specific provision need to be included, or is there enough in it?

Ms McMullan: At present, there is an awful lot of discussion around image-based violence. Certainly, more people come forward to Women's Aid. The definition of domestic violence and sexual violence in the 'Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse in Northern Ireland' strategy refers to digital abuse. We have been talking about that issue for a long time. We do not have stalking legislation.

Look at the police statistics. I have everything else here, but I do not have them with me. Malicious communication has gone up hugely, so we need specifics around that. I think that the Bill takes into account coercive and controlling behaviour and sexual violence, which incorporates grooming, images and all of that kind of thing. I would hope that it would be interpreted in such a way. It is such a growing area of abuse, and abusers and perpetrators are always two steps ahead in relation to new things that are happening, so we always have to be mindful of that.

Mr Beattie: First of all, Sonya, thank you for that presentation. It was exceptional. You have given me so much more information. Briefly, I join the Chair in having a concern over the definition being gender-specific. Whereas I am sympathetic, I really have to think about that a bit more. I thank Rachel for raising the issue about a victims of crime commissioner. I absolutely take your point, Sonya, that that person needs to know the full range of crimes, but that would absolutely be part of the terms of reference for any commissioner, so thank you for raising that.

It might not even be fair to ask you this, but we made a decision that we would not piggyback on the domestic abuse legislation for England and Wales, and we made really good reasons for that. On reflection, when you look at their legislation compared to what we are proposing, did we make the right call, in your mind?

Ms McMullan: In relation to the domestic abuse legislation that is going through Westminster, we were never going to get all of that. The Bill is really just what we are getting now. Housing, the family court review and the commissioner were not included. It was just an addition under the Northern Ireland — I do not know the legalities and the name. So I suppose that we are not really getting anything more. It is welcome that it has come back to our Assembly.

Mr Beattie: Thank you. I am glad. That sets my mind at rest.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Sinéad or Jemma, do you have any questions around the clauses?

Ms Dolan: Linda mentioned the leave, which we are interested in. Apart from that, everything has been covered.

Ms S Bradley: First, the presentation was exceptionally good and detailed and has given me plenty of food for thought. One of the items that has not been covered yet is clause 9, which is "Aggravation where relevant child is involved". I note that Women's Aid's specific call was that the child could be treated or recorded as a victim. I think that they are reliant on the parent making a complaint. I would just like to tease out further your thoughts on how you see that working.

Ms McMullan: In Women's Aid's 10-year strategy for children and young people, we call for full recognition of children and young people as equal victims of domestic violence. We look at that because children see, hear and feel the trauma and the impact, and we are all well aware of that. So it is part of our strategy, and we thought we would put it in there. I do not know how it would work, but children need their own advocate in cases. We have a concern with regard to the collection of evidence around coercive and controlling behaviour for children and young people. How is it going to be done, and will it be done in a child-centred way? We see the impact of court, family court, child contact and all those things in our children and young people, and the re-traumatisation and re-victimisation. Children need to be front and centre of everything. Together with the sector in England and Wales, we collectively call for children to be equal victims of domestic violence.

Ms S Bradley: That is a valid point, but I struggle to see how it could be framed. You are right; at the outset you said that this is the tip of the iceberg. We talk about figures here, and those are the people who picked up the phone and reported. In the instance where a parent is motivated by the welfare of their child, or if the child is actually the access route to finding out that there is an issue, it seems unfortunate that the child, in their own right, does not have a triggering mechanism. I realise that that is a bit of a minefield, but it is such a good point that it would be worthy of further exploration.

Ms McMullan: OK. Thank you, Sinéad.

There is something that we would like to raise around clause 8: "Aggravation where victim is under 18". It does not cover a situation where the victim is the child of a perpetrator or is someone the perpetrator has parental responsibility for. That is something to think about, because there are many different dynamics within families. One child is getting protection, but another child is not. It is just something else with regard to our children and young people.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): On the aggravating factors, your submission highlighted another series of aspects that maybe we should consider around disabilities, mental illness and black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) women. In trying to include those as aggravating factors, is the concern that it is not covered in the legislation as currently drafted? How far do you cast the net? Should all these be included as potential aggravating factors so that, in addition to the offence being against a woman or girl, it was motivated by the fact that they had a mental illness or were disabled and so on?

Ms McMullan: I did a bit of research around that when I was writing the submission. It suppose it is about what defines a victim and your definition of the vulnerabilities around that. I used that example from the Sentencing Council, which has decided to revise the wording to "victim is particularly vulnerable". Is it something about the wording that we use that takes into consideration all those minority groups? There are those extra layers of complexity. We were focusing on lesbian, bisexual and trans women, but of course for the whole LGBTQ community and — [Interruption.]

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Sorry.

Ms McMullan: Sorry. I have lost my train of thought.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I know. I am not sure whether that is Sinéad. If members in the telephone conference could mute their phones when they are not taking part, it would be helpful. I am not sure which member that was, but thank you. I appreciate that.

That is OK in terms of the aggravating factors. It is just something that we will need to give consideration to. I want to briefly mention a couple of other clauses, just so that I can cover them. I am conscious that we are short of time. We need to hear the next group. Linda wants to come in again, but then we will need to wrap things up.

Clauses 15 and 16 are about sentencing aggravation. Your submission talked about taking into account the abuse that has happened, not just against that woman but where it has occurred with other women, and that should also be taken into account.

Ms McMullan: Domestic violence is a crime that is a repeat offence. We know that from the statistics. It is a repeat offence not only on one individual but, very often, on several people. There is a call in England for a serial perpetrator register or a stalker register in relation to domestic violence crimes. We have repeat offenders. They come from other jurisdictions, and we have no way of linking that up through the databases and systems that we have at the moment. That is something that we would like the Committee to consider, because of the repeat nature of the crime.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Clause 26 concerns cross-examination in person. The submission said that the prohibition would apply only where there was a criminal conviction or court order, and you are suggesting that that should be extended to direct cross-examination in proceedings where there are allegations around domestic violence and abuse. Do you want to elaborate on that?

Ms McMullan: As I said earlier, someone who is intimidated and vulnerable in a criminal court is intimidated and vulnerable in any court. I have been to court with women to support them, and it is an extremely daunting experience for anyone. Cross-examination should not be allowed if there is any allegation of abuse. We are very clear on that. It should be taken into consideration even if there are allegations. You are going to get better evidence as well. All it takes for that person is one look and they just want to run out of the courthouse. I have been in there with them, and that is all it takes. That is how powerful coercive and controlling behaviour can be. You lose your whole sense of self. Understanding the impact of the court process is difficult, so anything we can do to get better evidence — that is one thing that would be a huge factor.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Linda, was there a point you wanted to come back on?

Ms Dillon: It is just a tiny point on the issue you raised, Chair, on aggravating factors.

When a woman is pregnant, particularly with her first pregnancy, that can often be the instigator for abuse, or at least it can heighten the abuse. Should here be something in the Bill around that?

Ms McMullan: It could be around vulnerabilities, and it could be —

Ms Dillon: A more general thing in terms of —?

Ms McMullan: — the interpretation of a more general vulnerability. It could be added within that.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Sonya, thank you very much. Your submission was excellent, and your engagement around the questions has been very helpful to the Committee, and we will use that. If there is anything that we need to come back to you on, hopefully you can help us with it. Thank you very much on behalf of the Committee. It is much appreciated.

Ms McMullan: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to be here — in person, as well. We really appreciate all the work that the Committee and the Department of Justice are doing in relation to the Bill. This is such an opportunity to make changes to the lives of all victims.