Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The officials giving evidence are Andrew Dawson, director of the criminal justice policy and legislation division, access to justice directorate; Angela Bell, Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill manager, access to justice directorate; Christopher McElwee, head of the hate crime branch, community safety division, safer communities directorate; and Alan Weir, head of the sentencing policy unit. You are very welcome to the Committee. Thank you very much for your attendance.

Do you have an opening statement?

Mr Andrew Dawson (Department of Justice): Yes, a very brief one. We were last before the Committee regarding the Sentencing Bill on 27 November 2025, when we provided a detailed overview of the background and the planned provisions, so I will not take up time today going over those provisions in my opening statement. Instead, I will focus on recent developments, summarise the final content of the Bill and draw to your attention any changes since our last appearance. Thanks for your time this afternoon, and, if you have outstanding questions about the background to the Bill or the policy development process, we will be happy to answer them during the session.

Once the drafting of the Bill was completed, the Minister tabled it for the consideration of the Executive. On 12 February, the Minister received Executive approval to introduce the Bill to the Assembly. Following consideration by the Speaker, the Bill was introduced on Tuesday last, and Second Stage is provisionally scheduled for Monday 16 March.

The Bill has eight Parts, 51 clauses and seven schedules. As you will be aware from our previous session, the key purpose of the Bill is to improve the effectiveness and transparency of sentencing and, in so doing, enhance confidence in sentencing decisions and the criminal justice system more widely. The Bill aims to do that by including clauses in relation to the following policy issues: the principles and purposes of sentencing; sentencing guidelines; the use of community requirements with suspended sentences; statutory starting points for life sentence tariffs for murder; extending the unduly lenient sentences referral scheme to include all Crown Court cases; enacting Charlotte's law; a statutory aggravator model for hate crime, which identifies protected characteristics for that purpose; a vulnerable victim aggravator; a new offence of assaulting a person who is delivering a public service, performing a public duty or providing a service to the public or a person assisting such a person along with the corresponding statutory aggravator for more serious offences; and increases to the maximum penalties and minimum disqualification periods for offences causing death or serious injury by driving, as well as making provision so that driving disqualification periods will normally be served after release from prison.

Whilst the final content of the Bill has not substantially changed since that proposed at the end of November, there are two developments that I wish to draw to your attention. They have been summarised in paragraphs 4 to 6 of our written briefing of 24 February. First, Part 1 does not include a power for the Court of Appeal to issue guidance of its own accord as was originally intended. As the drafting process was concluding, it became clear that that element required some further development and discussion with the judiciary. As that element was not considered to be crucial to the Bill's operation, it was decided to defer it for further consideration in the interests of progressing the many positive aspects of the Bill. Further development of the proposal will be taken forward as part of the Department's review of sentencing policy, which launched on 14 January 2026. I will provide more information about the review in a moment.

It is also important to highlight that transgender identity is not included as a protected group in clause 33 as part of the provisions relating to aggravation by hostility. The Minister wrote to Executive colleagues in November 2025 to seek its inclusion in the Bill. Unfortunately, the Executive could not come to a consensus, so transgender identity as a protected group was removed from the Bill.

Sentencing is an area of public policy that is constantly evolving. Since the conclusion of the Department's last sentencing policy review, and even since the Executive's approval was secured to draft the Bill in 2024, there have been sentencing policy developments in Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions that require further consideration. Therefore, as previously indicated, the Minister has launched a further review of sentencing policy to complement the introduction of the Sentencing Bill and to consider the need to develop future legislative proposals in respect of emerging sentencing issues.

The aim of the review is to identify proposals to strengthen the sentencing framework for particular types of offences, including serious sexual offences, drug-related offences, fireworks offences, animal welfare offences and offences for environmental crime. The review will also consider the use of good character evidence in criminal proceedings, the requirement to introduce a provision equivalent to Harper's law, the effectiveness of existing sentencing guidelines mechanisms and the need for reform in Northern Ireland, and recent developments in sentencing policy in other jurisdictions, in particular the outworkings of the Gauke review in England and Wales. Where the review suggests that changes to the current sentencing arrangements may be necessary, any proposals will be subject to public consultation. Subject to departmental resourcing, it is anticipated that that will occur in 2027, with a view to developing legislative proposals for the next Assembly mandate.

Once again, on behalf of the Department, I place on record our thanks to the Committee for its engagement to date and reiterate our commitment to assisting with the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the Assembly. The draft provisions included in the Bill provide a welcome opportunity to give effect to important changes to sentencing policy that centre on the experience of victims. We look forward to working collectively to ensure that the final content of the Bill delivers the best possible outcomes for the criminal justice system and the people whom it serves.

I thank those who have contributed to the development of the Bill, including our partners in the justice system, the legal advisers and drafters, and a variety of stakeholders, in particular the families of Enda Dolan, Lesley-Ann McCarragher, Martin Gallagher and others killed on the roads, as well as the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian. I also place on record my thanks to Máire Sheehan, who was present at this table at our last meeting and has since retired. She made an invaluable contribution to the development of the Bill, particularly in relation to guidelines, sentences and road traffic offences. With your indulgence, I place that on record.

I hope that that has been helpful, and we welcome any questions that you may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much. I echo your sentiment with regard to the official who has retired. She was very impressive when she was before the Committee. If you are still in communication with her, please pass on our regards to her in her retirement.

Mr Dawson: I will. I will be picking up her monitor at some point, so I will —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You can pass on the good wishes of the Committee.

Mr Dawson: I will. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We thank you for the publishing and introduction of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. Why is the word "etc" so important to the title of the Bill?

Mr Dawson: We asked the same question. I will pass that question on to Angela, who will provide you with a good explanation.

Ms Angela Bell (Department of Justice): It is because it introduces a new offence: assaulting a public worker. That extends it beyond purely sentencing policy. Therefore, the drafter decided that "etc" covered that extra element.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK; very good. That is very quirky, and I like it.

You are doing a sentencing review alongside the Sentencing Bill. Is there not a danger that people will want to see a lot of the things that you are now reviewing in the Bill?

Mr Dawson: I would not call it "a danger". It is an opportunity for us to look at those things. Admittedly, the last review was a long time ago, and it has taken a long time to put it into draft statutory form. As I said in the introduction, it is a constantly evolving area. We have done our best to capture everything from the last review that we possibly could in the Bill. Realistically, the new review was our means of ensuring that we could take a good but detailed look at emerging issues. As I said, I am hopeful that we will publish

early next year. That is still a significantly quicker time frame than the previous review, which is no reflection on the previous review, other than the circumstances in which it was done. We believe that we can do this one more quickly and have something ready for the next mandate. Essentially, this is just the art of the possible for us.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming in today. I was really pleased to see Charlotte's law as part of the Sentencing Bill. It is something that, obviously, Charlotte Murray's family have campaigned for, as have Lisa Dorrian's family in my constituency. Will you explain to the Committee how that will work? What new provisions will Charlotte's law introduce?

Ms Bell: Sure. If you have had a chance to look at the Bill, you will have seen that the Part that deals with the failure to disclose details of the location of a victim's remains is quite complex. That is largely down to the complex, existing sentencing framework and having to try to cover all the types of sentence that might be given in the event of a no-body murder or manslaughter conviction coming. Initially, when we looked at it, we envisaged only murder convictions. Those would have been relatively straightforward to deal with. However, when you get into manslaughter, it opens up the whole range of sentencing options to the court, so we had to make provision for those. That possibly explains why it is so lengthy and looks quite complicated in places.

The basic process will be that, if a person is convicted of killing a person and is not revealing how or where they disposed of the remains, the court will be required to increase the custodial period that that person will serve in prison by a minimum factor of 30% at the point of sentence. To encourage a disclosure post sentence, there is another mechanism whereby the killer can have a reduction of that extra time that they will spend in prison, up to a maximum of 50% and reducing on a sliding scale, depending on how long it is before they make a disclosure. That was intended to give ongoing encouragement to make a disclosure, which was stronger early on and, obviously, became less impactful as time went on.

It was intended that we would have something to take effect immediately, because, as you will know, in Charlotte Murray's case, the killer is in prison. He was sentenced only a couple of years ago, so it will be a number of years before he will be able to be considered for release by the Parole Commissioners. Originally, there was a campaign to replicate Helen's law, which relates to the parole stage. We considered that, in Charlotte Murray's case, it would be 16 years before we got to that point, and that was a very long time to wait with nothing to help in the meantime. These provisions are absolutely novel; they do not exist anywhere else. They will hopefully provide encouragement for disclosures in cases like Charlotte Murray's, and they will apply in Charlotte Murray's case as well. There is provision that, even though the killer has already been sentenced and is in prison, there will be an assumption that he received the extra amount of prison time that is suggested by the process, and, if he makes a disclosure along the way, he will also be able to avail himself of a reduction in that amount.

Ms Egan: Thank you. That sounds really worthwhile, especially given that the families of victims have been calling for that.

My other question about the Bill relates to lenient sentencing. A lot of victims whom I have engaged with, especially victims of domestic violence and abuse, find that, first, the court process is very stressful for them. Once they finally get through the justice system, they find that the sentences being handed down are not reflective of the damage that has been done. How will the Bill address that?

Ms Bell: The Part on unduly lenient sentencing will expand the current arrangements, which, at the moment, apply to a difficult-to-identify list of offences where the sentence is imposed in the Crown Court. The Bill simplifies that whole procedure by making the arrangements apply to any sentence that is given out in the Crown Court. It will widen those arrangements and allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether a sentence is unduly lenient and refer it to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration, if he considers that to be appropriate.

Ms Egan: Thank you very much.

Mr Beattie: Thank you very much. This is complicated. I have hundreds of questions, but I will not ask them all now; I will hit you with a couple of [Inaudible.]

I want to follow up on what Connie said. She is absolutely right, as is the Chair. He talked about the sentencing review, and I am sure that, when it comes to the sentencing review, one of the issues that you will look at is whether we can increase the powers of the Magistrates' Court to give sentences in order to alleviate problems going to the Crown Court. Why does the Part about unduly lenient sentences not cover Magistrates' Courts as well as the Crown Court? Surely that makes sense, because the Crown Court can give a sentence of a year or less, and a Magistrates' Court can give a sentence of up to three years. Why not include them all?

Ms Bell: There are a couple of reasons. The provisions, as drafted, allow us to, by regulations, include certain categories of sentences imposed in the Magistrates' Court if it becomes apparent that that is necessary as we go forward. The review of the sentencing remit of the Magistrates' Courts is being taken forward separately from the Bill, and, should it come to a point where Magistrates' Courts' sentencing powers are increased, there will be a knock-on effect when it comes to the arrangements for unduly lenient sentences. That is the time when those regulation-making powers would be appropriate for use.

At the moment, there is a category of cases that can be heard in the Magistrates' Court, but, if they have a maximum sentence of one year or more, certain cases can, on election of the defendant, be dealt with in the Crown Court. In those cases, a case from the Magistrates' Court could potentially fall within those arrangements if the defendant elects for a jury trial. It is not very blunt; there are options.

Mr Beattie: That applies only to cases that will ultimately be heard in the Crown Court. I am talking about the fact that the Magistrates' Court could hand down sentences that the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) would have no power to challenge as being unduly lenient. That feeds into what Connie said: when the cases of domestic abuse victims are heard in the Magistrates' Court instead of the Crown Court and pitiful sentences are handed down, there is no way of challenging them.

I will throw this one to you because I have mentioned it many times. We have only just moved non-fatal strangulation cases from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court. That means that nearly 300 such cases were heard in the Magistrates' Court and that none of the what might have been unduly lenient sentences that were handed down can be challenged.

Ms Bell: The normal maximum sentence for most offences in the Magistrates' Court is six months' imprisonment. With that maximum in place, it is hard to see how a sentence could be unduly lenient. I appreciate the fact that there are cases in the Magistrates' Court that, by exception, have longer maximums attached. In some of those cases, the defendant will elect to be tried in the Crown Court, which would open the case to having the arrangements applied to it.

The difficulty is that the Magistrates' Court is set up as a court of summary jurisdiction. It does not have the recording facilities of the Crown Court, and it does not spend the same time on sentencing remarks and lengthy explanations as to how the sentence has been put together and decided. The volume of cases in the Magistrates' Court militates against many applications to challenge sentences as being unduly lenient.

Mr Beattie: I get all that, kind of, and I will not labour the point — it is something that I will look at — but that is not the victim's fault.

I have a final question, and I ask for a quick explanation. There is a principle that punishment should be used "sparingly", yet punishment appears at the top of the list of purposes of sentencing. Explain how punishment is to be used sparingly when it seems to be the main purpose of sentencing.

Mr Dawson: We do not apply a hierarchy to the principles and purposes; the order is just the one in which they have been set out.

Mr Beattie: I will jump in. I get that, too — you could put it at the bottom of the list — but an ordinary person on the street would say that the purpose of sentencing is punishment. They will not tell you that it is about rehabilitation but will say, "He got it as a punishment", yet we are talking about punishment being used sparingly.

Ms Bell: One reason why the statement of principles and purposes is in the Bill is to explain that the purpose of sentencing is not just punishment but all the things that we have specified in the list. As Andrew said, there is no hierarchy of purposes. We want people to understand the multifaceted purposes of sentencing, and, hopefully, the Bill will help us to get that message out.

Mr Beattie: Again, I will always look at it from the victim's point of view. Punishment and reparation will always be what they want from a sentence. As a society, we look at rehabilitation and protecting the public, but we sometimes need to look at things through the victim's eyes. I will not go into it now. That is really useful.

Ms Bell: That is why we included the words "including victims" in setting out the purpose of protecting the public.

Mr Beattie: Yes, I see that. Thank you.

Mr McGlone: I thank the officials for their presentations here and for their work. I will focus on the new offence of assault on a person who is providing a service to the public, performing a public duty or delivering a public service. In the period from 2020-21 to 2024-25, there were 72,000 physical and verbal attacks on Health and Social Care staff. That is only one sector, and the figure does not include independent-sector employees or other public-sector officials.

Will you explain in a bit more detail how you envisage the legislation working its way through? How do you define someone who is providing "a service to the public"?

Mr Dawson: Thanks for the question. I will start, and Angela can jump in to correct me. It is our intention that the new offence will apply to any person providing services to the public, performing a public duty or delivering a public service. It is purposely wide. It is worth saying that we considered listing every occupation that would fall into those categories, but we decided against that for a couple of reasons: first, that we would inevitably miss out a profession or an occupation that falls within it, which we do not want to do; and secondly, that new professions are being created all the time, and we would prefer to future-proof the legislation. Instead of a list, therefore, we have purposely gone for a broad definition.

It will apply where a person is assaulted in the course of their work and will also cover anyone who is assisting a public worker at that time. We intend to replace the existing offences of assault on police, assault on fire and rescue officers and assault on ambulance workers. Blue-light workers will, of course, be included in the scope of the offence, but we anticipate that it will also cover other public workers who are providing a service to the public or performing a public duty.

Other examples of who may be covered are solicitors and barristers. They are providing a service to the public, so, if they are assaulted in the course of their work, we envisage that the offence would be in scope there. It would also cover broadband engineers and electrical workers, who provide invaluable service to the public and contribute to the economy and economic development. In a previous life, I was director of workforce in the Department of Health, and I am aware that we have not only doctors and nurses but 13 or 14 allied health professions as well as porters and cleaners who would be covered by the offence too. Those are some examples of who may be covered. It will be wider than that. You could argue that journalists provide a service to the public, so they may be in scope. It is purposely wide.

The offence will carry a higher maximum penalty than that currently available for existing occupation-specific assaults — it will be 12 months instead of the current six months. For more serious assaults, the Bill will make the fact that the victim is such a worker a statutory aggravating factor, which means that the courts will be required to reflect that specifically in the sentences that are imposed. That will extend not just to assault offences but to a wider range of offences against the person, recognising the serious nature of the offences listed.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that. My question is this: who would not be covered? Instances have been drawn to our attention of shop assistants, for example —

Mr Dawson: Shop assistants would be covered.

Mr McGlone: — who have been physically and verbally assaulted and abused. That has been drawn to our attention, and [Inaudible.]

I am trying to understand whether there is a certain level

whereby

cross a threshold [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You are flaky, Patsy. You are dipping in and out. That is just you on a normal day. [Laughter.]

I will move on. You can come back in.

Ms Ferguson: I was going to raise that issue, and I have another question as well. It is workers — it is all workers. Everybody is in; nobody is out. What individual who works is left out of that offence? Whether you are working in the private sector or the public sector, you are delivering a service for the general public. This is my reading of it: everybody is in, and nobody is out; is that correct?

Mr Beattie: We are out. [Laughter.]

Ms Ferguson: Does that dilute it?

Mr Dawson: I do not think that it dilutes it. Any person who is providing services to the public, performing a public duty or delivering a public service is more likely to be assaulted, because they may come into contact with people who are aggrieved at the job that they are doing. If a person is not in contact with such people or does not fall within the scope of that, they are unlikely to be the victim of the assault, and, therefore, would not —.

Ms Ferguson: I disagree, because we have a mixed economy. There are as many private-sector organisation workers delivering public services here as there are public-sector employees.

Mr Dawson: Yes. That is a good thing in the context of the Bill.

Ms Ferguson: It is all workers, then.

Mr Dawson: If a person is delivering a public service, they are covered — they are within scope.

Ms Ferguson: Is it all workers? Is that what we are saying? From your analysis, will that dilute it for the people who need it most — the key workers? As Patsy mentioned, the Committee has heard from retail workers. Recently, at the all-party group (APG) on access to justice, we heard about the severe effect on our legal profession. What they have gone through is horrific, and the level of abuse is increasing. It is just to get our heads around it. I am not clear what this is telling us.

Mr Dawson: Essentially, it is a further option for the judiciary when it comes to sentencing for offences in that regard. In sentencing, the judiciary will consider the circumstances of each case, the available sentencing range and the relevant guidance. This is a further option to reflect the fact that society views it as serious if someone is assaulted in the course of providing a public duty. Nobody should be assaulted in the course of performing their job. We do not think that it is being diluted; it simply provides a further option for the judiciary to consider when it comes to sentencing.

Ms Ferguson: I still cannot get my head around it. If I or anybody I know is assaulted doing a job, the judiciary should come down heavily on that person. I will not go on, but I have still not got my head around it.

My second question is on the severity of sentencing. In 2020, in the original sentencing review consultation, the Department's evidence showed that the risk of being caught was a more important deterrent than the severity of the sentence. The summary of responses highlighted that there was little evidence that tougher sentencing rehabilitated offenders or reduced offending. So many victims who I have spoken to say that maximum sentences are rarely handed down, and they are frustrated about that. What evidence base did you use for the proposed increase in maximum sentencing? I have so many constituents who are so frustrated that a maximum sentence is rarely handed down and cannot understand the leniency of the sentences.

Mr Dawson: I would be happy to provide any of our workings to the Committee. You make the point that sentencing is not widely understood, and I agree. On occasion, I do not understand it myself. The Bill, along with the review, is an opportunity for the Department to do more public awareness raising and education on the principles and purposes of sentencing. We can use the Bill and the review to do that. I agree that sentencing is not well understood, and it is on us to explain it.

Ms Ferguson: The Committee has visited the prison estate within the past year, and we know the significant pressures that it is under. Tougher sentencing without capacity planning will make conditions worse. What analysis has been done of the possible impacts of the Bill on the prison population? How does the Department expect to absorb any additional pressures on the prison estate? Has that been looked at?

Mr Dawson: We can provide you with our analysis of that, too. We would point to the increased provision around suspended sentences in the Bill as one way in which we hope to deal with that. We can certainly provide you with our evidence base.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Andrew.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you all. I do not want to rehash the earlier conversation about increased protections for public workers. However, at the APG on access to justice last week or the week before, we received a presentation about a legal professional's experience of stalking and abuse, which she received as a result of work that she was doing for a client. There is a specific ask for protection of people who are involved in legal services. It struck me that her frustration, and the reason that she was put at risk, was that the individual kept breaking a non-molestation order and received a suspended sentence. Would it be more effective if someone having a record of offending, being reported on numerous occasions or consistently breaking the conditions of a non-molestation order or whatever was considered to be the aggravating factor, as opposed to the profession of their victim? Has that been looked at?

Mr Dawson: I will need to come back to you on that, because I am not sure if it has been looked at. It has certainly not been looked at in the context of our work, but the Department has done work, so I would need to come back to you with a firm answer on that. The point was made that —.

Ms Bell: If evidence of previous similar offending is presented, the court takes that into account in its sentencing decision, and it will be treated as an aggravation. Sentencing escalates from fines to community sentences to custodial sentences, as a person's record increases.

Ms Sheerin: There is a public perception that a suspended sentence is a slap on the wrist and not an actual punishment. You said that that is a piece of work for the Department, but how it works in practice is a concern.

Ms Bell: One of the purposes of adding community requirements to a suspended sentence is to make them more effective and for there to be more of a requirement for the offender to do something about their offending, rather than just keep out of trouble for the period of the suspension.

Mr Dawson: I was an observer at the all-party group. The point was made that all of the legislation and offences are only as good as the enforcement. We took that away from the presentation as something to think seriously about.

Ms Sheerin: Has the Human Rights Commission had sight of the Bill? Has it made any comments?

Mr Dawson: The Human Rights Commission has had sight of it, and it is broadly content.

Ms Bell: We gave a presentation to the Human Rights Commission towards the end of last year, before the introduction of the Bill. We went through the contents of the Bill, and no concerns were raised.

Ms Sheerin: OK. The Human Rights Commission is "broadly content". Did it have any particular concerns?

Ms Bell: It asked us to assure ourselves that there would be no detrimental retrospective impacts for anybody, and we are content that there will not be. In preparing the advice for pre-introduction with our drafting colleagues and lawyers in the Departmental Solicitor's Office, and with the Attorney General's help, we have gone through the Bill with a fine-tooth comb, and we are content that there are no human rights issues that are of particular concern.

Ms Sheerin: Is that the Human Rights Commission's opinion, or did it ask you to come to that opinion?

Ms Bell: That is our opinion.

Mr Dawson: I am guilty of lapsing into civil-servant speak when I say "broadly" and such things. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is happy with the Bill and did not raise any showstoppers in respect of any of its provisions.

Ms Sheerin: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Of course, we will go through that, too, in our scrutiny.

Ms Ferguson: Were there any stoppers? You said there were no "showstoppers". None of us wants any showstoppers, but did the Human Rights Commission raise any stoppers?

Mr Dawson: There were no stoppers; no. This is my show. [Laughter.]

Ms Ferguson: No bother. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: It is good to have a copy of the Bill on blue pages. Doug referred to clause 1. I welcome the fact that the Bill starts with a summary of the purposes of sentencing, which are:

It is good to set that out at the start.

I come to clauses 37 and 38, which are on offences against public workers. There is an important public message there. Clause 38 is:

It states:

For my understanding: why is that not the clause? Clause 37 introduces an additional offence of assault against a public worker — and rightly so, as there should be public intolerance of that. However, could it not have been dealt with as an aggravation, because there has to be an offence, be it verbal assault, criminal assault or physical assault? What is the need for the separate offence in clause 37? Why could it not have just been an aggravation of any offence that is committed against a public worker?

Ms Bell: You are absolutely right. The common assault offence would cover those situations as well, but we wanted to make a different maximum sentence to reflect the public worker. The offence in clause 37 gives a higher maximum sentence on summary conviction than the common assault offence would. Then, for the more serious offences, for which there are already higher maximum sentences because they tend to be dealt with in the Crown Court, the fact that the victim is a public worker would become an aggravating offence in statute, as opposed to in guidelines as they are currently.

Mr Kingston: Do you not think that the higher maximum sentence could just have been covered in clause 38? It is almost as though there are two offences for the same incident, but that is not unusual: one incident can be categorised under a number of offences.

Ms Bell: The intention is really to set them very clearly apart from a common assault.

Mr Kingston: Yes. It is just to give extra weight to public messaging, whereby people realise that, if you assault —. In an earlier conversation, you said that you were not specifying professions and explained why: there are professions yet to be created and the scope should be very inclusive. Currently, an assault on blue-light workers exists as a specified offence. Can you just clarify again what currently exists in law?

Ms Bell: The current offences are common assault, which applies to everybody, and then three specific offences: assault of a police officer; assault of a fire and rescue service officer; and assault of an ambulance worker.

Mr Kingston: Right; and not other health workers?

Ms Bell: No. Those are the three. Each of those offences has a maximum sentence, which is the same as that for common assault. Therefore, this makes it more —.

Mr Kingston: What is that maximum? Is it six months?

Ms Bell: It is six months in the Magistrates' Court.

Mr Kingston: Right. Would those remain on the books, as such?

Ms Bell: No. They —.

Mr Kingston: They would be superseded.

Ms Bell: As per the schedules towards the end of the Bill, which make consequential amendments, those offences are revoked and replaced by this new offence.

Mr Kingston: OK. That is fine. You have explained that. Thank you.

Mr Bradley: I will be brief. Clause 41(3) mentions:

I welcome the increase in the sentence, but I am a wee bit concerned that drink-driving is treated as a first offence. It may be the first time that the person who has committed the offence has been caught, but it is probably a culmination of many occasions of drink-driving. I would prefer to see anybody who is caught drink-driving getting a longer sentence than 12 to 14 months, as their being caught is likely to be the culmination of offending. Do you agree with me that that is pretty lenient, or do you think that I am being draconian?

Mr Dawson: I will not comment on either. [Laughter.]

Work is ongoing in the Department for Infrastructure, which is the lead Department, on driving offences more generally. I imagine that it will be better placed to answer that specific question.

I will take the opportunity to say that we have worked hard to make sure that the new offences in the Bill reflect the absolute gravity of the crimes that can take place in that regard. We have taken great care to make sure that we feel that there is appropriate punishment.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much.

Mr Beattie: The sentencing review and the Sentencing Bill are running at the same time. Will the sentencing review look at sentence credit for early and late pleas? If not, why not? If it will, will that bleed into the Sentencing Bill?

Mr Dawson: The review is looking at credit for early guilty pleas It is not our intention that that will bleed into the Bill. For our own practical and resourcing reasons, we need to concentrate our efforts on the Bill and, separately, the review, and to take forward anything coming out of the review in the next mandate.

Mr Beattie: OK, so, even if the review says that we need to change the sentence credit formula for late guilty pleas, that will not be put into the Bill.

Mr Dawson: I do not think that we will have the outcome of the review until the Bill is well advanced or, perhaps, has completed its passage. It will be the next mandate before any findings from the review can be implemented.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is notwithstanding the fact that the Bill will be very amendable.

Mr Dawson: Again, we are not gainsaying anything that you might want to do in that regard.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Can we get the delegated powers memorandum in advance, or as quickly as possible, so that we can start our work in that regard? Obviously, another Bill is coming too, which we welcome. The Justice Committee will have to coordinate its work pattern around the two Bills.

Mr Dawson: We will be keen to get that and any other supporting papers or information to you as quickly as we can in order to help you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Members, we will be eating and drinking the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill very soon, after it has gone through its Second Reading.

There are no other questions. Thank you very much for your time. We look forward to seeing the delegated powers memorandum and to working with you in the coming months.

Mr Dawson: Thank you very much.