Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are joined by Sonya McMullan, regional services manager with Women's Aid, and Joanne Barnes, chief executive of Nexus. You are very welcome to the Committee, as always. This is our first session back, and we are very tight for time. I am sure that you will have an opening statement to make, but I encourage you to be as concise as you can be with your answers. I ask Committee members to be mindful of that when asking questions. We should stick to questions rather than monologues or speeches. That would be greatly appreciated.

Ms Sonya McMullan (Women's Aid Federation Northern Ireland): Thank you very much, Chair and Committee members, for the opportunity to give evidence today. As you know, Women's Aid is the lead voluntary organisation supporting women, children and young people across Northern Ireland who are experiencing domestic abuse. Last year alone, 524 women and 364 children stayed in a Women's Aid refuge. There were almost 9,000 referrals, and 55 languages were spoken across our services. The scale and diversity of need demonstrates the prevalence of domestic abuse and the urgency of strengthening the justice system's response.

There are a few key points that I will raise with the Committee about our consultation response. Across Northern Ireland, survivors consistently tell us that the criminal justice system is re-traumatising and slow and often results in sentences or charges being reduced. Even when survivors persevere through the entire process, sentencing frequently does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. The Bill is therefore critical. We feel that it presents a real opportunity to rebuild public confidence and to ensure that sentencing outcomes match the harm that is caused.

We support the Bill because, for the first time, in clauses 1 and 2, legislation will set out sentencing purposes and principles rather than rely on case law. Again, that is essential for public confidence, as well as for consistency, transparency and fairness. Survivors need to see that sentencing is proportionate to the harm that they have suffered. We want to emphasise the impacts of psychological trauma, coercive control and long-term risk, which, we feel, are not always dealt with appropriately by the criminal justice system.

We welcome the statutory domestic abuse aggravator, but Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) has shown that significant work is still to be done on the application of the aggravators. Crown Court sentencing remains far more robust than that in the Magistrates' Court, where 95% of domestic abuse cases are still heard. Without consistent tagging, the statutory aggravator cannot deliver its intended impact.

We have concerns about suspended sentences in domestic abuse cases. Too often, they are imposed without meaningful rehabilitation or supervisory conditions, thus leaving victims exposed to further harm. We therefore call for automatic custody or electronic tagging and monitoring where a suspended sentence is breached in domestic abuse cases. We have seen the success of that in England and Wales through the introduction of domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) and domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) where there are breaches.

We believe in zero tolerance for repeat offenders. Over a third of cases coming through the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) process at the moment involve repeat offenders, which simply is not good enough for a process that is meant to monitor high-risk offenders in order to keep people safe. We call for the proper resourcing of probation services in order to ensure that community-based requirements are safe and effective.

Since 2020, sadly, 34 women have lost their lives in this part of the world. We heard about another case yesterday, so that total has probably gone up. We know that, per head of population, that is much too high. We urge the Committee to consider a specific offence of femicide. We ask you to reflect on gender-based motivation and on aligning Northern Ireland with international best practice. The sentencing in the Natalie McNally case, with the minimum tariff of 30 years, sent out a really clear message. Femicide is not just a murder. It is motivated by gender-based hatred, domination and discrimination. We support the Dorrian family over no-body cases to get closure for families as well, and we put that on record.

Our key asks of the Committee are that it ensures that the Bill provides for consistent application of the aggravators across all courts; strengthens safeguards around suspended sentences; introduces femicide as a specific offence; embeds understanding of coercive control throughout sentencing guidance; resources probation appropriately to deliver safe and effective community-based requirements; prioritises victim and family well-being in all sentencing decisions, including looking at the introduction of Charlotte's law for no-body cases; and, where there is a history of domestic abuse, introduces a new statutory offence of manslaughter for coercive control behaviour and death by suicide.

We do not support the introduction of restorative justice. We really want to put that on record, given the work that the Department of Justice is undertaking on that. Overall, we want a commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women and girls across the whole sentencing framework. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you for that, Sonya, and for being so concise. I really appreciate it. Joanne, do you want to contribute?

Ms Joanne Barnes (Nexus): Like Sonya, Nexus welcomes the opportunity to come along to provide evidence today. As a representative of Northern Ireland's leading sexual abuse charity, my evidence will focus on the impact on victims of serious sexual offences. In the time that I am afforded, I will focus on five provisions in the Bill. The first three fall under clause 1, which is titled "Purposes and principles of sentencing: adults".

Clause 1(2)(b) mentions:

That causes us some challenge. We believe that victims need to be a stand-alone category, as do their families and support networks. We understand that the language reflects the amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 in England and Wales, but we feel that it undermines the role of victims of serious sexual offences and the significant trauma and harm caused to them if they are not recognised as being a specific grouping that requires protection of not only their needs but their rights in order to keep them free from re-traumatisation. The Committee should take that under consideration.

Clause 1(2)(e) mentions:

Like Women's Aid, we have real concern about the proposed use of restorative justice in sexual offence cases in particular for many reasons, not least because perpetrators could continue to display patterns of abuse, particularly where family or parenting relationships exist. In line with the Rape Myths = Real Harm campaign that was launched today, we have to remember that a person can be raped in an intimate relationship or a marriage. All those complexities lie at the heart of what victims of serious sexual offences can experience. Victims and survivors can continue to experience fear, coercive control, trauma or emotional manipulation, and that undermines their ability to exercise full autonomy and provide free and informed consent for restorative justice. We have to remember that all choice and control have been taken away from those victims by the acts that they experienced, so are they really in a position to give consent freely to engage in that process? I am not suggesting that restorative justice should never be used, but the safety of victims and survivors and having genuine, informed, victim-led participation is paramount. How do we achieve that? Achieving it will require a real degree of expertise and sensitivity. At present, we do not have that expertise in Northern Ireland, nor are we likely to have the funding for it. We therefore need to be realistic. Restorative justice will not be appropriate in all cases, and guidance should make that clear.

The third element of clause 1 is the interpretation of "proportionate" and the issue of character references. We have real concerns, which we have put on public record on many occasions, and I have spoken to the Minister of Justice directly about the use of good-character references in serious sexual offence cases. The proposed changes, which concern withdrawing character references at sentencing, do not go far enough for us. We want to see good-character references be totally abolished throughout the justice process for victims of serious sexual offences. Somebody's public standing does not equate to their ability to commit an act or to their culpability, nor should it mean that they get a lenient sentence.

That brings me to suspended sentences, unduly lenient sentencing and community requirements. Clause 3(3) states:

We are not sure what informed having "7 years" in Northern Ireland.

Again, we recognise that it reflects legislation in England and Wales, but we are not sure why it is being applied in Northern Ireland.

We also have significant concerns about suspended sentences and community requirements in cases involving sexual offences, given their serious and often ongoing nature, particularly as we see the change in perpetration of such crimes towards more online acts and non-contact abuse. They still have a serious and detrimental impact on victims, and that must not be lost.

I am concerned that there is a shortage of spaces in our prisons at present. It appears to me that, at times, sentencing is led by that fact and not by the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the victim. That is a real concern. Ultimately, decisions must be informed by robust assessment of the nature of the crime, the seriousness of the offending and the likelihood of reoffending, taking histories and previous patterns into account. Often, we do not see a full risk assessment of the risk to others happening, not just the victim in that moment but others who could be exposed to further harm and trauma.

Finally, we do not support limiting the unduly lenient sentencing review mechanism to Crown Court sentences, as that risks excluding lower-level offending in domestic and sexual abuse cases, particularly offences under new legislation such as upskirting and downblousing, as well as non-fatal strangulation cases, which are largely held in Magistrates' Court hearings at the moment. There have been moves to change that direction to the Crown Court, but we worry that the ability to appeal unduly lenient sentences may be restricted if the provision is limited to Crown Court sentences.

In conclusion, Nexus supports the Bill's wider objectives of promoting fair, proportionate and transparent sentencing but urges that their implementation be underpinned by a robust trauma-aware approach — not trauma-informed but trauma-aware — in that it protects the needs and rights of those impacted on by sexual abuse. Sentencing should recognise the distinct and often ongoing nature of the offences, prioritise victim and survivor safety and public protection and ensure that the seriousness of abuse and its impact are properly recognised throughout the criminal justice process. Sentencing decisions should not inadvertently minimise abuse, reinforce harmful myths or create further risks to victims and survivors. Instead, they should contribute to safety, accountability and confidence in the criminal justice system. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much also, Joanne, for being so concise. I really appreciate it.

I will touch on one small aspect of the Bill and will then bring in members. Clause 1 is titled "Purposes and principles of sentencing: adults". You both touched on that. First, on subsection (2)(b), which states:

am I right in saying that you think that victims of crime should be a separate category, not bracketed in that subsection, and that the protection of the public is different from the protection of victims and, I would go as far as to say, their families?

Ms Barnes: Totally.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you agree with that, Sonya?

Ms McMullan: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Subsection (2)(e) states:

I am still trying to get my head around what that means, but, if it means financial compensation or something of that nature, are you totally opposed to that? Are you totally opposed to there being any engagement or contact? If you are open to the idea of some kind of monetary reparation, how should that play out, given that we know that finances form part of coercive control and domestic violence, which means that there could be an extension of the offence?

Ms Barnes: Nexus is not open to there being monetary reparation. That can lead to greater leverage, through blackmail, bribery, intimidation and corruption. To me, those matters belong in the civil courts, not in the criminal justice process. It is down to individuals to decide whether they want to take such action outside of the criminal justice process. They are therefore very separate things.

We have real concern about the wider restorative justice piece and bringing people together so that a perpetrator can be made accountable for their actions, particularly where there is an ongoing relationship with that individual, whether they be a previous long-term partner or have children with them. That could be used to abuse and to continue to coercively control and manipulate the individual. Often, if children are involved, there is a guilt factor for the victim, in that they feel that they should perhaps participate in the process to try to repair relationships all round. We urge caution on, and sensitivity to, that. We are engaged with the restorative justice team on the issues. We have made the issues known to the team by raising them directly, as well as by bringing them to the Committee today.

Ms McMullan: Yes, we have met the team as well, following on from a round-table meeting that we had with it about this time last year.

There is a real power imbalance. We spoke to you before about the removal of cross-examination of victims in court and the importance of the opening of the remote evidence centre (REC) and special measures. All those things are in place so that people do not have to go through that experience in court through the criminal justice process.

We have also consulted. On Tuesday night, I spoke to members of our survivor engagement group about the issue to see whether, before I came here today, they had changed their mind since the last time, and they had not. That is the reality. We also spoke to women in outreach services and in refuge. There are not many women knocking down the door of Women's Aid to say that they want to be part of restorative justice. I know that that is down to choice — of course it is — and people should always have choice about the way in which they want to proceed. There is a power imbalance and a pressure to participate, however. Victims very often feel pressured into things. That will be the case until we have a good evidence base that tells us that it works and that it is something that we should move forward. As Joanne said, the Department of Justice has very little money. Having very skilled facilitators for restorative justice will cost an awful lot of money and take an awful lot of time to achieve. At this time, there are a lot of other key priorities on which Women's Aid would like to focus.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Clause 1(4) is about proportionality and what a judge should take into consideration. As subsection (4)(b) states, it includes:

Again, that provision may alarm a lot of people here. To me, the whole of subsection (4) departs from convention and form, because it removes the express reference to either harm or culpability. There are therefore real issues with the whole of subsection (4). Do you see there being a place for that provision anywhere? Obviously, the issue of character references is very topical at the minute. Would you go further than that and say that a judge should not take into consideration a person's character and circumstances, or is there a difference between an offender's character and circumstances?

Ms Barnes: I do not think that either should be taken into consideration to mitigate either sentencing or culpability while we are directing juries. Juries are already very susceptible to our societal myths. The aim of the launch of the rape myths campaign today is to go some way towards rectifying those widely held views. Yes, there has to be the right to a fair trial for an individual who is accused of a crime and who has not yet been found guilty, but we need to balance that with the protection and rights of the victim in the process, who has gone through a huge ordeal before even getting into the courtroom.

That feeds into lenient sentencing, where a perpetrator pleads guilty on the morning or the day of the trial and, as a result, gets a full mitigated sentence. They have still put the individual through extensive re-traumatisation by having to share their story and give evidence up to that point through the achieving best evidence (ABE) process etc. Again, we have real trouble with an offender's getting get a full mitigated sentence on that basis. For serious sexual offences in particular, a perpetrator's character or circumstances should not be considered.

There is a lot of theory out there that harmful sexual behaviours, such as looking at child sexual abuse material online, is related to addiction and sexual perversion. No, it is not. It is a crime, and it is an abuse of a young person. To take that approach would therefore really minimise and excuse the perpetrator's behaviour and give them some sort of justification to think that what they are doing is OK because they are having difficulties.

There is only one victim in such cases, and that is the child who has been abused. The provision distracts focus from the fact that the person is an adult with agency who therefore knows right from wrong and should not participate in such activities. For me, be it circumstances, position or anything else, no individual factor should have a bearing on the outcome of serious sexual offence cases.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Sonya, will you speak to the domestic violence piece?

Ms McMullan: Yes. It is really difficult, because it always comes down to the legislative process and the right to a fair trial. It is about balancing all of that. For example, I know that we will never completely get rid of character references, because we will not be allowed to. The way in which the South has moved to putting someone on oath when doing so underlines the seriousness. I think that, if people are informed, "If you give this character reference, there may be serious consequences. You will have to go before a court of law and say this on oath", they will say, "Um". It is about providing a little guidance on what they are getting into. I would welcome that, and I believe that the Department will soon be consulting on it. We look forward to being able to respond to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Is there a chance that someone taking the stand to give a character reference will further re-traumatise the victim, because the person is taking the stand to say how great the perpetrator is?

Ms McMullan: I do not know, but I think that a lot of people will now consider differently providing a character reference, especially in light of what has happened in the past few days. That has shown that it does not matter what your position is or whom you are. We have been doing a lot of work on sports, for example. A lot of people have used someone's involvement in sports in their character reference. Coaching is a really big one in a lot of our sports. We have been looking at the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) as it relates to AccessNI and what comes through about domestic abuse. Nothing comes through from civil cases. I know that that is for another day, but it is so problematic, difficult and challenging. What we need to do is disrupt those people's behaviours and their lives, especially where coaching is involved. So many people out there are doing all these things, and they may have a court order against them relating to a child, but the challenge is brought, "Look, they're a great coach, and they're doing so much good work in the community". I do not care. Nobody is a good role model and a good coach if they are doing what they are doing behind closed doors and there is a civil order in place to tell us that. It is therefore about disrupting those behaviours and that pattern of behaviour. We are aligned with Joanne and Nexus's position on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. I will now bring in members.

Mr Kingston: Thank you both for your attendance, for the papers that you submitted and for the important work that your organisations do. You made two suggestions, one of which was that femicide should be a stand-alone crime, while the other was that gender, or sex, should be an aggravator, under clause 35. From my understanding of the papers, we have been told that we cannot have both when it comes to sentencing. If femicide is defined as being a stand-alone crime, we cannot have as an aggravator the fact that the crime was against a woman. There is a case to be made for it to be one of the further kinds of hostility. Clause 33 of the Bill includes disability, racial, religious and sexual orientation groups. In many cases, being female is a vulnerability, and that is at the root of a lot of crime. It is a priority to end violence against women and girls. Clause 36 contains a catch-all, extra point about vulnerability. It has been asked in discussion of the Bill whether that could include gender. The wording in clause, which is:

does not give that sufficient recognition.

Does the offence of femicide exist elsewhere? I know that the term is used, but does it exist elsewhere in the UK and Ireland? If you had to choose one of the two, which would be better? I do not think that you can have both when it comes to sentencing. Would it be better to have gender, or sex, be an aggravator?

Ms McMullan: Where there has been a murder in which a woman has died, we are calling for the specific offence of femicide. Many countries have already passed such legislation, and femicide is a separate offence punishable by life imprisonment. It was adopted in Italy last year, in Croatia in 2024, in Cyprus in 2022 and in Belgium in 2023. Many countries in the EU have therefore adopted historic law against femicide, so it is definitely gaining traction.

Femicide needs to be recognised in the same way as crimes that are not femicide, such as assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and other assaults, are. One example that we used was that of the man who was going around south Belfast on his bike a few years ago. Those crimes were committed because of gender, and we definitely see that.

There is a power imbalance here. We are talking about violence against women and girls. All those crimes disproportionately affect women and girls every day. I am not saying that they do not affect men and boys, but sexual offences, honour-based violence, female genital mutilation and feeling safe behind closed doors and in public spaces affect women more.

We are doing work with young men around the Irish Football Association's Fair Game programme. We talk to 16- and 17-year-old boys, and they say that they do not realise that girls their age feel that way and are frightened by them because of certain behaviours. There is therefore a lot of work to do on prevention.

I go back to the Natalie McNally case and the judge's sentencing remarks. They were so powerful, and they sent out a clear message. The sentence for that crime was 30 years. That really restored public confidence. Everybody was talking about it, saying "My goodness. A sentence that high has not been recorded in so many years". Until we have zero tolerance across our society, and that is reflected in sentencing, which we feel it is not at the moment, we will not make any changes. We see, however, that many other parts of Europe have moved forward in looking at femicide as being a separate offence.

Mr Kingston: The counterargument to that is that that very high sentence was given without there being an aggravator, because it was just recognised as being an appalling murder.

Ms McMullan: That is not always the case. That is unique. Sadly, many more such cases will be coming down the line in the next few months and years, depending on delays in the system.

The sentence was therefore really important. Sometimes, we view these as crimes of passion based on the way in which they are put across in our courts, but we have to recognise them for the crimes that they are. That is something that we will push for.

Ms Barnes: I think that having a gender aggravator across crimes would be helpful. It would offer support to many victims. As Sonya said, men and boys experience crimes also, particularly sextortion, and it has been found that men and boys are more vulnerable to that. Having a gender aggravator across a multitude of crimes would therefore help and would not show gender bias per se. Rather, it would show positive support and recognition that certain crimes are more likely to be experienced by certain demographic groups. More broadly, that provision offers that.

Having a stand-alone crime of femicide is very different, in that a gender aggravator would not be applied there, because it is recognition that a woman has been killed and that it was more likely than not to have been perpetrated by a man. It would therefore be slightly different in how it is conceptualised.

Particularly in Northern Ireland, where we have such high rates of domestic homicide — I was just looking at the statistics for last year, and the number of male and female victims who, unfortunately, lost their lives was horrific — having femicide as a crime, where violence against women and girls is endemic in our community, would send out a strong message. The ending violence against women and girls (EVAWAG) strategic framework is a priority for the Government. They are therefore likely to take a strong stance and send out a clear message by supporting the introduction of a statutory offence of femicide.

Mr Kingston: You both said that you do not support restorative justice, or words to that effect. Clause 1(2) states that one of the purposes of sentencing is rehabilitation. If restorative justice is seen as a way of reforming offenders, why do you not support restorative justice and what do you mean by that?

Ms Barnes: For us, it is the power imbalance. If you are the victim of a sexual offence, you have had all power and control taken away from you by that perpetrator. They forced you into acts that you did not want to do, and that power imbalance could continue through the justice process. If a recommendation is made that restorative justice would be the only outcome and would offset any prison sentence or suspended sentence for those behaviours, that forces the victim again into that feeling of not being empowered, not in control of making decisions, because that is being imposed on them.

If a victim chooses a restorative justice outcome, if it is put on the menu as an option and might be one of a number of consequences for the behaviours perpetrated by the individual, that could, I suppose, be supportive for that individual. However, that would have to be down to informed choice and the victim being really sure that they were clear about what that process would involve, and preparing them for that. That would require psychological support to prepare for potentially meeting that person again for the first time. As Sonya said, we have remote evidence centres for a reason, which is to protect the victim from having to face their perpetrator again in a confined setting. We feel that deciding on restorative justice on behalf of the victim would be wrong.

I am speaking about serious sexual offences, not other forms of crime. It has been proven that restorative justice can work with low-level or petty crime, whether that is breaking and entering, car theft or other things like that. In the youth justice process in particular, where young people might not take full and reasonable account of the consequences of their behaviours, restorative justice can be very helpful. Again, though, I would urge caution in peer-on-peer sexual offence cases where both individuals are minors because, obviously, if that is the only outcome, it does not deter the perpetrator or take away from the seriousness and impact of those crimes on the victim and, maybe, does not adequately reflect that.

Mr Kingston: Is it that you feel that it should be a custodial sentence? I get what you are saying about the seriousness of the crime, and I do not want to diminish that, but there might be low-level crime where the punishment is not going to be custodial. If it is some sort of community service —

Ms Barnes: An upskirting or downblousing issue, say, perpetrated by someone under the age of 18, which is likely to be heard in a Magistrates' Court, is very unlikely to achieve a custodial sentence. It is down to the individual victim to decide whether they want to engage in any restorative justice process on that occasion. It should not be imposed on the victim. Obviously, judges will make a ruling, and if they decide on behalf of the victim that that is going to be the outcome, that is unfair because they may not be prepared to or want to engage with that individual, which is quite understandable.

Mr Kingston: If it is a community sentence, would you rather that it was with the Probation Service rather than restorative justice? Is that what you are saying? Is it a feeling that restorative justice is softer in some way? What is your perception?

Ms Barnes: I do not think that it is softer. I just do not think that it recognises the trauma of the victim. Those were intense, intimate experiences that happened. Even if it is upskirting, downblousing or sharing a nude image, that is a personal and intimate experience, particularly in the formative mind of a young person who is developing. It could potentially affect their confidence regarding sexual relationships, and such images are often shared among peer groups, so there is a real sense of embarrassment. Young people do not have a developed emotional regulation system — their frontal cortex is not fully developed. We saw in the case of Alexander McCartney that the non-contact abuse that he perpetrated online led to someone dying. We must not detract from the fact that just because I did not physically touch you does not mean that I did not have a severe and lasting impact, particularly on your mental health, and we have to be very cautious about that with young people.

Mr Kingston: To clarify, if a non-custodial sentence is passed, what should it be? Should it be probation-led?

Ms Barnes: The victim should be given a choice.

Mr Kingston: Should it be probation-led rather than restorative —

Ms Barnes: The victim should be given a choice.

Mr Kingston: Between?

Ms Barnes: The options should be put to the victim and their family: a community sentence; a community sentence and a restorative justice process, running side by side; or simply a restorative justice process as an alternative to a community sentence.

Mr Kingston: Does that happen in other sentencing? Are those options put to the victim? I do not know.

Ms Barnes: I do not know, but I do not think so. In this case, I am speaking only about serious sexual offences.

Ms McMullan: We are very clear that we do not support the restorative justice process in domestic abuse cases.

Mr Kingston: Because? I am just interested to know.

Ms McMullan: I talked in my introduction about the power imbalance and the pressure that is felt by many people, including victims of abuse, to participate. Very often, the abuse is minimised. Domestic abuse does not end at the point of separation. Coercive and controlling behaviours continue; the stalking continues; harassment through child contact occurs; and there is financial and economic abuse. We have pushed and pushed for a remote evidence centre and the removal of cross-examination in court, and we have called for special measures so that people do not have to have such experiences.

We have talked to many survivors about that issue, because it should be a personal choice and not what Sonya McMullan thinks. It should be what the survivors who come through our services think. They do not want to be in contact with those individuals. They have tried their hardest to get away from them.

I will give an example. A woman was in a case conference, recently — she came in after her ex-partner had been in the room. He had left, and she had walked into the room. She smelt his aftershave, and she passed out in the room. That was all that was needed to trigger her. That is how powerful it can be. I am sure that many of you are thinking, "Wow!", but that is it. That tells the story better than anything.

Ms Egan: Brian touched on quite a bit of what I was going to ask. Thank you for coming today, and for the work that you do in representing victims and survivors. I want to talk more about femicide. You mentioned a few other countries that have introduced it as a stand-alone offence. I would like a bit more information about how they operate. Does it receive an automatic life sentence? Is it a higher sentence than would be given for murder, for example?

Ms McMullan: Sorry, I do not know the specifics of all of them, Connie. I would have to do my research on that.

Ms Egan: That is fine.

Ms McMullan: As far as I am aware, it is a higher tariff. It is an automatic life sentence, some of which are 25 years, and some countries operate a 30-year sentence. That is without parole. You cannot go before the parole board until the end of the sentence. That is the most powerful piece of it all, because what is "life"? What does "life" mean?

Ms Egan: Joanne, have you anything to say?

Ms Barnes: Likewise, it is about sending a strong, clear message and having it on the statute books as a crime that is recognised and has its own sentencing guidelines. That would send out a clear message, given that we have a Programme for Government priority of ending violence against women and girls. That is not to minimise the males who have lost their lives through domestic homicide. There needs to be recognition of that also. It is not about treating people differently, but recognising that violence against women and girls, in particular, is at epidemic levels in Northern Ireland and does not seem to be abating, unfortunately.

Ms Egan: I have another question. I hear the message, loud and clear, about restorative justice. Something that Brian did not touch on, but which I had in the back of my mind, is the fact that the Gillen review mentions restorative justice but is also clear that it should be victim-led. That is what I read up on when reading the Bill. I understand that you are representing the voices of victims and survivors, and few have come forward to say that they want that option. Is your opposition to it based on the fact that you do not see how it could be workable?

Ms McMullan: Women's Aid is led by the women who come through the doors of Women's Aid. We have to be their voice, today. I hope that I am representing them. On Tuesday night, I spoke to a group of survivors through my survivor engagement group. I also asked some of the Women's Aid staff to go out and ask women in outreach and refuge. There is no appetite for restorative justice.

Women are in refuges, locked away from those perpetrators. They are hypervigilant, looking over their shoulders when walking down the street or in town or when leaving their kids at school. Those crimes are intimate crimes, and as Joanne said, they are different from youth justice and other parts. We are not against restorative justice methods and the methodology behind them, but I do not feel that there is a strong enough evidence base around either domestic and sexual abuse to convince us.

Ms Barnes: The restorative justice body urges caution on the use of restorative justice, particularly in domestic and sexual abuse cases. It urges and discusses the need for specialisation and expertise. Obviously, restorative justice in Northern Ireland has, largely, been used in our conflict-related issues and has been proven to have benefits, but where are the trained individuals, particularly around these specific issues? That is the real challenge for me: we would be rushing into something without real, genuine expertise or a serious evidence base to say that restorative justice is effective and works.

Most perpetrators of serious sexual offences do not admit guilt. If the case has enough evidence, it progresses to the court system. We go through the trial. Taking accountability is not high on their agenda, for want of a better word. Perpetrators want to deny and deny. They do not want to take responsibility for and accept anything that they have done. They will do everything around victim blaming, focusing on the victim's behaviour and not focusing on their behaviour. A real concern for me is that we would start to consider that, once that person, who has denied the crime the whole way along and said, "I did not do that; I did not commit that crime", is found guilty, we would be potentially thinking of entering into a restorative justice process. That would be challenging.

Even where someone does admit guilt from the outset, I would be concerned about the victim's ability to make an autonomous, informed decision about that. It would require serious psychological support. We have called for psychological support when going through the achieving best evidence process — which is not there, let alone when going through a restorative justice process — to helping that victim prepare for the potential retraumatisation and aftermath of that retraumatisation. We get that the justice process has to probe. It has to ask questions of the evidence that the victim provides to ensure that that will stand up in court, so it is important that we are realistic with victims about that. However, it is also important that we support their needs around that, because it is extremely brave of them to come forward in the first place.

Ms Egan: That is really helpful. Thank you. You mentioned that you had engaged with the Department around the Bill. Have you had an opportunity to engage with it around removing good character references? I have serious concerns around that. It is inappropriate for the Department to be using domestic abuse and sexual violence cases.

Ms Barnes: We engaged directly with the Justice Minister on the issue. She explained the challenges around removing it from the justice process, from the court hearing, and explained that there would be greater opportunity within the given time frame of this mandate to remove it at the sentencing option. For us, that just does not go far enough, and it does not offer enough protection. We do not hear a victim impact statement until we hit sentencing, so why do we hear anything about the good character of the individual prior to that? We hear everything about the victim's past sexual history. We do not hear anything about the perpetrator's.

This is not about withholding the right for a fair trial for a perpetrator. It is about balancing rights, balancing protections and ensuring that a victim is protected. We welcome the fact that victims are soon to have independent legal representation in pretrial hearings. It is really important to protect what will be shared during the court process and what a defence barrister will use that for and to give that person rights. I would really urge that that should be moved further and carried throughout the court process and not just in pretrial. However, I appreciate that it has to be piloted, first and foremost.

I have real concerns around hearing about somebody's good standing, the number of people they employ or whether they have supported sports and social clubs. That really does not reflect —. It flies in the face of all the evidence that we are getting around abuse of positions of trust. It is what perpetrators do. Perpetrators get themselves into a position of trust so that they can abuse that position. Their offending will start at a lower level and build as their confidence builds and as they do not get detected for what they have done, and that will continue to a point at which, unfortunately, very serious cases come in front of our courts. Victims are silenced because they are worried about whether they will be believed. They are silenced because the perpetrator is in a position of trust, whether it is in the community, in their family or in their church. It is really concerning that we are allowing that to happen.

Ms Egan: Absolutely.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you both for coming in and for the work that you do in your respective fields.

A lot of what I wanted to discuss with you has been covered. You have provided a really good rationale as to why you do not believe that restorative justice practice is suitable. I have a question about aggravators, which Brian touched on. Sonya, you indicated that you want to see misogyny as a specific aggravator, and you gave the explanation that that is for crimes apart from murder. However, you said that you think that it is not to be used in cases of intimate partner abuse, just when it is a stranger abusing a woman. Will you talk me through where you see the nuance there?

Ms McMullan: It is a really difficult and challenging one when it comes to where and when we use that. In cases of intimate partner abuse, it is really important to differentiate that. We are taking a zero-tolerance approach to try to call that out, change society and disrupt those behaviours. That zero-tolerance approach is especially important in the courts and when it comes to specific offences under the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, such as coercive control, domestic abuse and the aggravators attached to that. We need to use those powers better and call those behaviours out. That is why we are pushing for zero tolerance of the femicide offence as well, because at the moment, we have such a problem here.

We are into year 2 of our ending violence against women and girls strategy, and the domestic and sexual abuse strategy is rolling out as well. We are in a really challenging funding position. We have letters of offer only coming out at the moment and we are six months into —. For organisations like ours, it is really difficult. It is about the whole area of prevention, of changing attitudes and trying to reach communities through the EVAWG strategy and all the rest of it. There is a lot of really good work going on, but it will take a generation to change all of this.

What can we do now? We can take a zero-tolerance approach to send a clear message. I keep referring to Natalie McNally's case and the sentencing remarks of the judge. So many people were talking about that, and that really started a ripple effect of people thinking, "Right, OK". We are constantly trying to get people to go ahead with court cases. They withdraw because they cannot cope with the delays, the challenges, the trauma and the impact. I was in court two weeks ago with a friend who was seeking an order and, oh my God, I could have walked out. It is so traumatising and so difficult. People are so brave to put themselves forward, because they have to do everything. We are sitting here in the absence of domestic abuse protection orders and notices, which is for another discussion. We are going in and removing that woman and family and putting them in refuge. They are locked away. Refuges are great, but we should be removing the perpetrator and letting the family stay in the home. At the moment, our whole civil and criminal justice system does not allow that, but the Committee has an opportunity, through the Sentencing Bill, to change that and send a clear message of zero tolerance in this country, given the high levels of femicide that we have per head of population.

Ms Sheerin: I want to tease that out, because, for me, the whole rationale behind the statutory aggravators is education. There is an inherent message that certain crimes are worse than others because they are driven by hatred or by a belief that people are lesser than you because of their faith, racial background or whatever it is. Part of the education piece in trying to tackle the high level of femicide here, and the fact that so much of it originates as domestic abuse within the home and culminates in murder is about acknowledging the fact that that is because those people believe that their partners are less than them. Is there a way of making those work hand in hand?

Ms McMullan: I suppose that the thing is that we would worry that that would minimise the sentence. It is just about making sure —

Ms Sheerin: It is more of a practicality.

Ms McMullan: It is more of a practicality and the unintended consequences of legislation, which happens with all pieces of legislation, really, does it not?

Ms Sheerin: Thanks.

Mr Beattie: Thanks very much, Sonya and Joanne. I wish that we had more time, because it is fascinating to listen to you.

I have a couple of questions. Sonya, you mentioned domestic homicide reviews. I am straying a little from the subject, but bear with me on this. Scotland has just introduced suicide to that review process. Should we be striving to introduce the suicide element to that in Northern Ireland in the same way as Scotland did?

Ms McMullan: We are in year 2 of the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. A key point in the action plan is to introduce a steering group or working group to look at the introduction of domestic abuse and suicide reviews, which is what they are called in Scotland. We are pushing the Department, as well as the police and everyone else involved, to act on that. We have been told that, at the moment, there is no capacity in the Department to collect the numbers of women who have lost their lives to suicide in the aftermath of domestic abuse.

England and Wales have domestic abuse and suicide reviews, and those show that two thirds more present as suicides than present as domestic homicides. The numbers are huge, and we are missing that: we know only about the families who come to us. Sadly, I have spoken to so many of those families, including sisters and mothers. We will be talking about that at the next meeting of the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, where Frank Mullane from Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse (AAFDA) will speak to us about that.

There is also the piece around the change of the law. We have seen some precedent around that in other jurisdictions, but I am talking about the lost voices for whom we do not have the numbers. We need our police, in the aftermath of sudden death, to better investigate whether there was a history of domestic abuse and what that looks like. We need them to get those numbers and start that collection. That is set out very clearly in year 2 of the action plan.

Mr Beattie: Are they saying that they are not collating the data on that at the moment? Is that the problem?

Ms McMullan: No, the data is not being collected in a way that we can —. We have been talking about our 31 women, and that is not reflected at the moment. We have been talking to police and the Department and we will keep pushing on that. We are pushing on that for the families as well and will continue to do that through the expert reference group and through the strategy. It is there in black and white: it is part of year 2 of the action plan, and we are in year 2 now, so the Department needs to start the working group and bring all the key stakeholders along to try to move it forward. Other jurisdictions have been able to collect the data, so why can we not?

Following that, we need to see what the key recommendations are around that. We need to strengthen our mental health and suicide strategies — they are not strong enough on domestic abuse. We have met the mental health champion, who is very supportive, and we have met Brenda King. We have met so many people on this and on the issue of the coroner in the aftermath of suicide. What the families have to navigate is so difficult and challenging. There is a lot of work to be done. AAFDA now has a worker in Northern Ireland, Michelle, who will be at the all-party group to discuss the support that she is putting in place to help families to navigate. Similarly to families through the domestic homicide review process, everything that those families have to navigate is so challenging for them, so they need support to be put in place, and the Department needs to acknowledge that.

Mr Beattie: I met Michelle last week or the week before.

Joanne, you touched on unduly lenient sentences. I have a concern that, if we look only at the Crown Court, we will miss so much of that.

I have raised the issue of hybrid offences, and you mentioned non-fatal strangulation. Non-fatal strangulation is a hybrid offence, and those cases were always heard in the Magistrates’ Court; they have now shifted to the Crown Court. However, because it is a hybrid offence, it can be heard in a Magistrates' Court. We cannot challenge an unduly lenient sentence; the system does not allow that. However, you want to go further than that, Joanne. You want to go further than hybrid offences and cover any sexual offences.

Ms Barnes: Yes. In the case of domestic and sexual abuse incidents, there should be a review of the ability to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. We limit the sentence, for example, for a young person who has been involved in rape or serious sexual assaults, and we have recently seen that in England. Young people's court cases are more likely to be heard in the Magistrates' Court, but that does not detract from the impact on victims etc. If we look only at hybrid offences or only Crown Court offences, where does that leave the legal loopholes and the right of victims whose cases are caught up in a Magistrates' Court to access full justice? All domestic abuse cases, apart from murder, are heard in a Magistrates' Court. It causes a challenge for us. We host the domestic and sexual abuse helpline for Northern Ireland. We see the people who come forward with concerns about the sentencing of individuals and the access that the individual still has to them after they have been sentenced and are in jail: they can still make contact, abuse and coercively control the victim from behind bars. We are concerned that, if the cases are restricted solely to the Crown Court, there will be a lost opportunity around less serious sexual offences and domestic abuse-related incidents.

Mr Beattie: I kind of agree with you on that, Joanne, but you know that there is a huge pushback on that and that the likelihood is that it will not happen. It might be that the best that we can offer is to include hybrid offences, which would, at least, be a step in the right direction.

Ms Barnes: It would, particularly for non-fatal strangulation, which is, we know, a precursor, in many cases, to murder.

Mr Beattie: Finally, I have a question for both of you. I am interested in what your feelings, having spoken to victims, are on this. We have a really slow criminal justice system here, meaning that sexual abuse victims could wait for years before their case comes to court. If someone pleads innocent right up until the starting date of the trial and then pleads guilty, they can still get 25% off their sentence. What is the feeling in the victims' group about the tariff that gives a sentence credit of 25% for a late guilty plea up to the start of the trial?

Ms Barnes: If it is the day before or the morning of the trial, the victim is prepared to give their evidence. By that time, the victim has concluded that they will have their day in court and that their story will be heard. Quite often, it does not come as a relief that the person has pleaded guilty, particularly when it is explained that there will be a mitigated sentence. We do not explain the implications of sentence mitigation enough to victims and survivors, and that applies to pleading to lesser offences as well. Sexual activity with a child is rape because the child cannot give consent. Why are we flowering that up? Why do we have a lesser sentence? No matter what sort of contact happens with a child, it is non-consensual. We need to accept that and reflect it in the sentencing. When people hear that there is a guilty plea, they might feel an immediate sense of relief, but there might be an awakening when they hear that it means the person getting a 25% reduction in their sentence, and there is another mitigation for good character. For example, the individual in the local trafficking case got six years at first, which was an unduly lenient sentence, and, in the end, they got nine years. For 11 victims, one of whom lost their life? To me, that does not adequately reflect what had happened. Again, that individual had pleaded not guilty until the day of the trial.

Mr Beattie: It feeds into something that you said, Joanne. You said that the perpetrators of serious sexual offences will never take on accountability.

Ms Barnes: Very rarely.

Mr Beattie: If they are to get a sentence reduction of 33% for an early guilty plea and 25% for a late guilty plea, we are almost placing an onus on them to say, "I can play this out and see how it goes, and I can still get away with 25% off". Is that the consensus?

Ms Barnes: That is probably the advice that they are given. We have to respect the fact that they are entitled to legal advice. Those loopholes are in place even though serious sexual offences are third on the statute book, which reflects the seriousness of those offences and their impact on the victim.

The reality is that less than a third of rape cases make it to court, and, of those, very low numbers get a guilty outcome. We have to consider what motivates a victim to come forward. They are extremely difficult offences to try because, often, there are no witnesses. It could be a historical case, meaning that there is no physical evidence to bring to the trial. We have the provision that people can declare, disclose and report at any time, but we do not have the structure and supports in place to ensure a robust trial. How such things are investigated and evidenced by our police force also needs to be looked at.

In addition, it is about the wording that we relay to victims. If a case does not go forward, phrases such as "unreliable witness" etc can really undermine the victim's journey in the process. Ultimately, you become a witness to the crime that was committed against you. What protections do you get? The defence is there to protect the perpetrator, and the prosecution is there to represent the state, but who is there to represent the victim? The right to independent legal representation should be there for victims throughout the court process. We welcome the fact that it is being introduced at pretrial hearings. Gillen highlighted that in 2019, but we are now in 2026 and are only starting to hear discussions about the introduction of that in this mandate, which will end in the coming months.

Ms McMullan: We have some good news about Judge Keown and the domestic abuse court pilot. He is one judge who, because of the delays, is really trying to get that process moving more quickly. We are really looking forward to seeing the results of that pilot, although it is only in one court. We are looking at remote evidence centres being opened in Newry and Donegal so that there is more connectivity. We have an all-singing, all-dancing remote evidence centre in Belfast, but what about everybody else? You need to have equality across all court sites.

I worked with a survivor whose domestic abuse case took five years to process. The serious sexual offences were dropped. We see a lot of that in domestic abuse cases: sexual offences are dropped because of plea bargaining. You need to have really good support with you. There is an amazing prosecutor working on that domestic abuse pilot, and she meets the victims beforehand and speaks to them. She will know their name and have read their file, and she will have had that extra time due to the resource that has been put into that. As Joanne said, some women get themselves psyched up and think, "This is my day in court here", only for it to be pulled at the last minute. They are waiting to see whether the defendants come through those doors. We now have a criminal justice worker in Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid who goes to the houses of the women to pick them up and bring them to court. You have to be their eyes and ears, because they will zone out. It is such a traumatic process. It is so challenging.

We are making a small bit of progress on the remote evidence centre and the domestic abuse court. We have the listings up in the Foyle area as well. However, we need specialised courts across Northern Ireland. That particular woman said that she hung in there for five years only because she had the same prosecutor, who was really supportive; the same police officer in public protection; and the same Women's Aid worker. It is very rare to have the same people. They held her; they really did. During that time, she had to leave work, and a relationship with a new partner broke down. Her whole life was very difficult. She experienced extreme levels of trauma and was diagnosed with PTSD. That is what we are putting our victims and survivors through as they go through the criminal justice process. I admire anyone who goes the whole way through.

Mr Beattie: At the end of the process, the perpetrator can plead guilty right at the last minute and still get a reduction in their sentence.

Ms McMullan: We do not agree with the tariff reduction.

Mr Beattie: As it stands, the advantage is with the perpetrator.

Ms McMullan: At all points.

Mr Beattie: I am 100% with you on character references.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation, ladies. Thanks very much to the rest of the Committee for some of the questions that members have put, and thank you for your answers. It has been very informative.

Nexus urges extreme caution on restorative justice in sexual abuse cases but seems to support the intention behind restorative justice. I have massive problems with restorative justice, especially when it is used after instances of sexual abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse, rape and so on. Instead of saying that you urge extreme caution, can you tell us in which crimes restorative justice should not be used?

Ms Barnes: It should certainly not be used in cases of serious sexual offences or domestic abuse offences. Obviously, it is not my place to do so, and, if it were me, I would not be grading sexual offences. That is not my role; that has already been done in the criminal justice process, and we have to follow that and abide by it. However, we are getting recognition of lower-level sexual offending. My concern about lower-level sexual offending is that it can be an indicator of more serious sexual offending in the future if it is not treated with the seriousness that it deserves, given the impact that it can have on a victim.

As I highlighted to Brian, at that point, for me, it is about victim choice. The evidence suggests that, if restorative justice is being considered, it needs to be done by a specialist and highly trained individual. They need to risk-assess whether it is appropriate in the case before allowing it even to be put to be the victim as an option. When it is put to the victim as an option, it is an option, not something that has to be or should be forced upon a victim at any time. The victim should have the right to withdraw at any time. They should have that agency in and control over the process.

Ideally, we would not like restorative justice used across any sexual offending and domestic offending, but we are realistic about the fact that it probably is, to a degree, already happening in the youth justice process when there is low-level sexual offending, in that the Youth Court might sit without having direct access to the young victim. I know of one case where the perpetrator met the parents of the victim, and a restorative justice process, to some extent, took place. There was an agreement and an acceptance by the perpetrator that their behaviours were harmful to the young person. It is already happening to a degree, Maurice. To me, our role is around urging that caution, making sure that the guard rails are in place to protect victims and making sure that there is clear guidance on when it should not be used or considered.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for that answer. I have one more question, and it is around something that you said that resonates with me. The victim becomes a victim for the entirety of the process. They are removed from their home or family setting, and they remain the victim throughout the whole process, whereas the perpetrator seems to be able to go on with his or her life without any challenge at all until their case gets to trial. That is wrong. The protection should be with the victim, and more should be done to protect the victim from having to endure that length of time until the case gets to court, as well as having to endure it out of the family home or out of their locality and so on. What is your view on that?

Ms McMullan: We know that individuals are just witnesses in a case. They have no right to their own legal counsel and support. Many women turn up at court, see counsel from the Public Prosecution Service and think, "Oh, you are there for me". They are not. The women are witnesses in a case.

It is good that individuals will receive support in serious sexual abuse cases. There is a role for that advocacy. That support is needed. We know that many women whom Women's Aid deals with get through the process only because they have a support worker who takes them through it. As I said, support workers go to the individual's house to pick them up and bring them to court each day. They are there to be with them and to be their eyes and ears when the trauma is so much that they switch off completely. In our criminal justice system, those individuals are witnesses in a case.

By having that support in place, the domestic abuse court is showing a better way of doing that. Victim Support and Women's Aid are there, and the prosecutor spends a little extra time with the individual in those cases, which is having a real impact. The criminal justice worker is key, and there should be access to a criminal justice worker for all victims who have to go through the process. That is not happening, however, and people are turning up to court with no support and no family members. They end up pulling out of the process because of constant adjournments and their lives being put on hold. I know that safe leave is coming through, and we hope that the 10 days' paid leave will be through before the end of this mandate. People cannot take time off work; they have caring responsibilities etc. On Tuesday, I was with a woman in court from 9.00 am to 4.30 pm to obtain a non-molestation order. She had to take a day off work, get kids looked after and all the rest of it. This is not an easy process. From the start to the end, it is not victim-focused, nor is it victim-friendly. We have been trying to make changes in that regard, and the Gillen review brought a lot of that about in relation to sexual offences. However, a lot of the changes are not relevant, sadly, to domestic abuse cases.

Ms Barnes: When the police turn up at a domestic abuse incident, it has probably been seen as the safest option, historically, to remove the victim and the children and protect them somewhere else so that the perpetrator does not know where they are. Unfortunately, we are in a housing crisis, which could mean that doing so results in their long-term removal from home. We need to change our thinking around that and put better protections in place. That is about ensuring that non-molestation orders are imposed and that any breaches of such orders are acted on. As Sonya said, the MARAC process creates a revolving door of repeat cases. Often, it is not until there has been another violent incident that action will be taken in the case of a breach of a non-molestation or non-contact order.

We need to shift our focus. There are not the resources in society that we had 10, 15 or 20 years ago in housing and in support systems. There is no refuge for male victims, so where do we assume that those individuals will be housed if they have to remove their children? We need to shift our thinking on lots of stuff around protection and safety, but that probably requires greater investment in community policing and responsive policing. Ultimately, perpetrators do not die down too quickly and will be relentless in their pursuit, particularly when they feel that they are losing control over their victim. That is when we know — the evidence tells us — that violence increases and the means of perpetration are stepped up. To enable us to address that, we will have to have better policing and better support structures so that individuals do not have to spend a full day in court to get a non-molestation order approved. We need to get DAPOs working so that victims do not have to go to court, and we need trained police officers who can represent on their behalf.

We have a way to go. We often rush in legislation without the training and expertise behind it that allow us to enact it. We have seen that with DAPOs. My worry about restorative justice is that we rush ahead and bring in legislation without the training and the expertise to prevent it causing more harm than good. Our organisation is there to provide trauma-informed counselling services to people, and our oath, I suppose, is to do no harm. We should all be very mindful that we should do no harm when we are dealing with victims in such difficult cases.

Mr Bradley: I feel strongly that a victim is a victim. A victim may be a witness, but, to me, the victim is the victim, and the perpetrator is the one who should be removed. I have some difficulties with that. Thank you so much for your really informative presentation.

Mr McGlone: I apologise for being a bit late. I had other issues to attend to. Forgive me if some of what I am about to ask repeats anything that was mentioned earlier.

I listened to you, Joanne, speak about community policing, and I listened carefully to what you said, Sonya, about cases where people — mostly women — arrive at court, go through the doors and then say, "No, I can't go through with this". As we know from high-profile cases, unfortunately, the offenders do not come out of nowhere. There is usually a history of repetitive behaviour. Situations may be red-flagged; in other words, there may have been manifestations of bad behaviour to which police were called and the partner said, "It's OK. It's all right", and that may have happened on multiple occasions. How should the police have that address or that person red-flagged in the first instance so that, when a call comes in, they know that it means, "Get out there pronto before something worse happens"?

Moving on to the court, a prompt and quick response by police could give the victim more confidence that the entire system will be behind them and with them right through. There is another element to that, however. Picking up on what you said, Sonya, when a victim gets to court, unless there is someone with them — a support worker such as you — they are very much on their own. Could the courts, the police and the Public Prosecution Service do things a bit better to ensure that the sensitivities and nuances of a case and the difficulties that the victim has come through even to have the confidence to go into that court are better respected? Those may be complex issues, but they ran through my mind as I heard what you said.

Good character references are a prominent issue that was mentioned. Should their use simply be disallowed, especially in difficult and traumatic sexual abuse cases? You are right to say that these guys usually exploit situations with organisations — children's organisations, support organisations or whatever it might be — and ingratiate themselves with people in those organisations so that they are best placed to exploit. Some are not just exploitative but very skilful in being so, as we all know. That is my second question: when it comes to the use of good character references — we are talking specifically about sexual abuse cases — should it just be non-use? Should we rule them out?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Sorry, Patsy, you missed my wee warning at the start of the meeting to try to be concise.

Mr McGlone: Sorry, Paul. I was making up for lost time.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The first two questions did not really relate to the Bill, but, if you want to address them quickly, that is fine. The third question was about character references, which the Bill refers to; on that basis, you can answer that question.

Ms Barnes: Absolutely, they should be abolished. Is there precedence for that? Yes, in New South Wales, which is where we look to for any good body of work on sexual offending. Australia, which is a world leader, has abolished the use of good character references in any sexual offence case. There is a precedent there. It is about looking into that, the legalities of it and what enabled that to happen.

As an organisation that is there to support victims, we know that how you leave somebody feeling is more important than the outcome of their trial. How you are treated matters. Are you treated with respect, dignity and sensitivity? Is there a sense of confidentiality around what you are sharing? Is that upheld? With serious sexual offences and sexual offences more broadly, there is the right to anonymity. Having trust in all parts of the process is key if that is to happen.

I turn to responsive policing. If people get a responsive service in cases of domestic abuse, does that increase confidence? Absolutely. It increases confidence that the police are there and are responding to issues. Here is the difficulty for me: if they are a response officer or community policing officer, are they well trained in the use of the domestic abuse, stalking and honour-based violence (DASH) risk assessment that the police use to flag serious domestic abuse? A number of low-level risks equal a big risk. I do not think that that is often understood within policing, particularly in domestic abuse. Those smaller risks can build to a bigger risk. Take non-fatal strangulation. I think that we all know what that is now, but we have found that police officers are not skilled or trained in recognising it and asking the right questions around it. It is a real potential precursor to someone's murder. There is a real correlation between those things.

Ms McMullan: I totally agree. In the interests of time, I will not go on. When it comes to policing, our Chief Constable tells us, "We do not have enough money, and there are not enough police officers out there." We are trying to restore public confidence. The police save lives, and we want people to lift the phone if a serious incident is happening, but we know that the police are not responding to all of those calls. They are trialling a remote officer thing at the moment; maybe that will help. The police are looking at different issues, and they have their 'Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Action Plan'. We have seen the internal issues that have come out over the past few weeks to do with sexual offences in policing and the vulnerability of individuals. We are happy that those are coming out. Just yesterday, we heard the Police Ombudsman speak about more failings in the Creswell/Katie Simpson case, which was horrific. I will end my comments there because I know that Paul is thinking of the time.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: I have something that is more of a comment than anything else. It is a privilege to have you here. It is a privilege that victims of sexual and domestic abuse can get resources and support from you.

You have been loud and clear in saying that there is a range of resource issues. From a legislative point of view, we could do some really good work on the basis of what you have recommended, which could go a long way, if we address the other resource issues alongside that. I have no questions, but it was a powerful presentation, and I listened attentively. It was so good that I could hear the victims' voices through the work that you are doing and what you presented. Thank you, ladies.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Ciara. That saves me doing that at the end.

I have two specific questions. Brian walked up to ask me if he could ask one of them, so I will allow him to ask the second question. However, there are two issues that we really need to tie up. The first is clause 14, which is titled "Breach or amendment of suspended sentence order, and effect of further conviction", and it goes on to schedule 2. Schedule 2 is mighty; it is about three pages. You have to really search to see whether it means that someone who breaches a suspended sentence order gets a custodial sentence. I am not sure that it does. What are your thoughts on clause 14 and schedule 2? Do you agree that someone who breaches a suspended sentence order by doing something of a serious nature should go straight to prison?

Ms Barnes: One hundred per cent.

Ms McMullan: What about monitoring and tagging as well? We do not use those enough here. We have already been told by the Department of Justice that, when the domestic abuse protection orders and notices come into place, it will not look at electronic monitoring and tagging in relation to breaches of those. That is the go-to in the pilot in England. Those involved said that it worked really well. We had Jess Phillips over last year, before she moved on from her safeguarding role. A pilot in her area, just outside the centre of Birmingham, has worked really well. It has sent out a really clear message. If we are seeing our prisons filling up and all the rest of it, why can we not look at those other methods? We need to start asking, "Why can we not do that?".

Ms Barnes: There is a role for technology in monitoring some activities, particularly if someone is on the sex offender register and cannot participate in certain activities or cannot be in certain areas. We need to use technology, given how GPS and all the rest of it have advanced. There is not the human resource on the ground, and it is proven that monitoring can be done so much more sophisticatedly. Yes, it needs to be used, but, from my end, I support monitoring of the adherence to conditions of suspended sentences, quite a few of which tend to be imposed in serious sexual offence cases.

A sexual offences prevention order might go alongside it —. I know that people sometimes have to make an application if they want to go to the cinema to watch a certain movie or whatever. How do we do that? How do we use technology more effectively? In reality, we do not have the human resource. Human resource is costly, and it takes a lot of time to get that training and expertise into the probation service. How do we succession-plan around that and future-proof the monitoring? We cannot just build a prison overnight and create more spaces.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): My second question was about the stand-alone offence of femicide and/or a compromise with regard to aggravation by reason of vulnerability, but, Brian, you wanted to ask that question.

Mr Kingston: Thanks, Chair. I know that you had a similar thought to mine. Clauses 33 to 35 are about aggravation by hostility, and clause 36 is about aggravation by reason of vulnerability. If we look at those again, maybe you would say where an aggravator for gender should sit. The kinds of hostility are specified as race, religion, sexual orientation and disability. Clause 36 is broad, but it also has various criteria. It defines a vulnerable person as:

Ms McMullan: That is the definition of an "adult in need of protection" in safeguarding.

Ms Barnes: If safeguarding legislation —.

Mr Kingston: That could be taken to apply as an aggravator in a crime against a woman, but it is a convoluted way to get there.

Ms Barnes: Safeguarding legislation needs to be updated to reflect domestic abuse. The ongoing lotteries-supported health programme on the impact of domestic abuse on children and families is one of the strongest things to come out about the need for specialist engaged support, particularly when issues do not reach the threshold for statutory monitoring or social work involvement. There is a definite need for us to review our safeguarding legislation. Our policy reflects domestic abuse, but not all policies do. Recognising that might add greater weight to the case for bringing gender into that clause.

Mr Kingston: Under "vulnerability" rather than "hostility"?

Ms Barnes: Yes. However, a review of our safeguarding legislation is long overdue.

Ms McMullan: Adult safeguarding especially.

Mr Kingston: We have enough to do in this mandate, but we will take note of that.

Ms Barnes: Exactly, but it is well overdue. There was talk about a move to use protection language and stuff like that, but it has all stalled somewhere. Without those changes, there is still a risk that the gender aspect of vulnerability will not be picked up. It will be more about asking, "Have I got the mental capacity or", from a disability point of view, "the physical capacity to protect myself?".

Mr Kingston: It would need to be mentioned specifically.

Ms Barnes: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you very much for your time. Thanks very much for your presentations and your concise answers; I really appreciate it.

Ms Barnes: Cheers.

Ms McMullan: Thanks.