Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Karen Sweeney, director of the Women's Support Network, will give evidence today on behalf of Rape Crisis NI.

Thank you very much for your attendance, Karen. You are very welcome to the Committee. I invite you to make an opening statement, for which you will have 10 minutes. I ask you to be as concise as possible when answering questions. That goes for members as well; please try to cut out statements and philosophies and just ask questions. I will hand over to you, Karen, without further ado.

Ms Karen Sweeney (Rape Crisis Northern Ireland): Chairman and Committee members, thank you for this opportunity to give oral evidence. I am the director of the Women's Support Network. I am here to speak to you today following the written submission made by Rape Crisis NI. Unfortunately, our manager, Olivia Turley, is unable to attend and sends her apologies. I have stepped in to take up the mantle, so you might not get too many answers to your questions. [Laughter.]

Rape Crisis NI was set up in 2019 with funding secured by the Women's Support Network. Rape Crisis NI provides high-quality support and advocacy services to survivors of rape and sexual violence, as well as advocating for systemic change by challenging societal norms that perpetuate sexual violence. Accredited trauma-informed training is provided to volunteers who provide one-to-one support for up to six months to victims/survivors of sexual violence and rape. That is not just a listening ear but a trauma-informed developmental recovery journey for our clients. We currently have 39 volunteers in a variety of roles, including providing one-to-one support, covering other things such as the information and support line and assisting with comms, events and fundraising. We are currently supporting 32 victims/survivors, each of whom is receiving one-to-one support.

Rape Crisis NI welcomes the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and the introduction of several positive measures that, if implemented effectively, have the potential to improve outcomes for victims and survivors and enhance confidence in the justice system. While the Bill introduces a number of positive reforms, we believe that it is an opportunity to do more and to address the structural inequalities and lived realities of those most impacted by crime.

Although we are disappointed that, during this mandate, there is no stand-alone hate crime legislation, we understand the reasons for that. We therefore welcome the introduction of a statutory aggravator model for hate crime, allowing all criminal offences to be aggravated by hostility based on the membership or the perceived membership of a protected group. In the Bill, those are cited as:

However, we are concerned about the absence from the aggravator model of two groups: women and girls, under a misogyny aggravator; and the transgender community, under a transgender aggravator. By omitting those, we fail to recognise the nature and context in which those crimes exist.

In March 2021, a motion, agreed unanimously by the Northern Ireland Assembly, included the words:

This is our opportunity to do just that.

Progress has been made on the motion in the development of a strategic framework to end violence against women and girls that is supported by action plans, the second of which was launched yesterday at Queen's University Belfast. At the launch, the Justice Minister talked about the need to address misogynistic behaviours. She said:

Why is it important to make misogyny a hate crime aggravator? There are a number of reasons. If we are to tackle the root causes of violence against women and girls, we have to tackle ingrained societal norms, attitudes, systemic inequalities and behaviours that have, unfortunately, become normalised. Those attitudes and behaviours are on a progressive continuum, as represented in the pyramid of gender-based violence and the pyramid of sexual violence, starting with those that some see as being low level, such as whistling, catcalling, making jokes and spreading myths about rape. However, as the behaviours are on a continuum, they can turn into upskirting and downblousing, and the continuum continues.

In London, for example, men were sending nude pictures via Bluetooth to women's phones just because they had the Bluetooth function switched on. There was quite a pandemic of that. Although such offences are seen by some as being low level, they should not be, because they can lead to more serious, severe offences: domestic violence, sexual violence and even murder. We therefore need to call out even low-level offences and more serious offences, because, in some cases — not always — they can be precursors to progressive behaviours. We have seen that over recent years in some high-profile cases, such as the Sarah Everard and Katie Simpson cases, and, just while I was waiting to come in, the Natalie McNally case came up. We did believe that something was going to come out, but there it is, today: her murderer will appear in court next month on 19 counts of voyeurism, including making images of 12 women without their knowledge.

No matter how low-level an offence, crime or behaviour, none of that should be happening, nor accepted. Those attitudes and behaviours target women and girls for the very reason that they are women and girls. Why should it be that way? Why should women and girls be made to feel unsafe or be unsafe? Misogyny, as detailed in the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls, is:

Therefore, it is a hate crime, as it is directed specifically at one group, namely women and girls. Also, a hate crime aggravator in the Bill for even low-level behaviours would act as a deterrent. It would carry weight. It would send out a stronger message: those behaviours and attitudes towards women and girls are not OK, and it would enable us as a society to tackle those root causes of violence against women and girls. Including misogyny as a hate crime aggravator would also enable the collection of better data, as the offences and crimes would be recorded alongside the aggravator. That would also help us to tackle the root causes and provide better, targeted training and support structures.

The transgender aggravator, which is already a hate crime aggravator in Scotland, England and Wales, is already acknowledged as a hate crime here by the PSNI, who have been recording it as such for many years. Although the numbers of transgender hate crimes are low when compared to other hate crime data recorded by the PSNI, it is because we have low numbers of transgender people here. However, the crimes committed against them are committed because they are transgender, and, therefore, it is a hate crime, just as misogynistic attitudes and behaviours are directed at women and girls just because they are women and girls.

When recording a crime aggravator, we also support the Bill's recognition of intersectionality, that is, that there can be one or more aggravators. For example, someone may be black, gay and disabled. A white person could be wearing a head scarf. It is important that all aggravators are recorded to recognise combined discriminations when sentencing takes place.

We welcome the additional provisions in the Bill around Charlotte's law. When the location of the remains of a victim have not been disclosed, that will be taken into account for both sentencing and parole. However, we would also like to see the Bill include provisions similar to that of Jade's law, which was introduced in England and Wales in 2024, although it has not been enacted yet, giving protection to the children of those convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of a partner or ex-partner with whom they have children, where the burden of proof will lie with the convicted individual to justify any involvement in the child's life. In fact, only this week, we have heard how that should go further to include serious sexual crimes.

With that, I will stop and thank the Chair and the Committee. I am happy to take questions, and I will try my best to answer them. If I cannot, in my role, I will take them away and come back to you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Karen, for that presentation and for being concise. I will hand over to members now.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks very much for coming in, especially given that you were put into the hot seat at short notice. You touched on intersectionality. Others who have given evidence expressed concern about double counting. On the misogyny aggravator, it is my belief that misogyny is the reason why domestic violence against a woman happens and the reason why we have an issue with femicide here and with women being murdered at the rate that they are. If we are to do the education piece properly and prevent femicide happening in future, it is important that that is reflected. Some of the other witnesses felt that, in cases of intimate partner violence, the domestic abuse aggravator is sufficient. Do you have thoughts on how we can manage that and ensure that both of those realities are reflected?

Ms Sweeney: When you talk about intimate partner violence, are you —?

Ms Sheerin: We heard from Women's Aid and, very strongly, from the Bar Council that there is already the domestic abuse aggravator, and they felt that, in cases where a woman had been murdered or abused by a partner, that aggravator kicked in and that, given those circumstances, we do not need the misogyny aggravator. They are providing a practical concern. Women's Aid did not want the domestic abuse issue to be overshadowed. My concern or apprehension in that regard is that you will move away from identifying the reason why domestic abuse is happening in the first place. Do you have any thoughts on that, given that you made a point of saying that you want to see that intersectionality reflected?

Ms Sweeney: It was brought up in Scotland by its review team that, yes, more serious crimes of domestic abuse and murder are already covered, but, without the misogyny aggravator, we are not getting to those lower levels, even though that is where the roots are. We should address it earlier and with younger people before it gets to that stage. That is not covered. If we are going to get to the roots of acceptance of societal norms, it should never be —. That is where we definitely need the misogyny aggravator, because the others are already covered. The Scottish model backs that as well.

Ms Sheerin: OK. In those more extreme cases or in a situation where it is partner-on-partner abuse, you are content that that covers it, that misogyny does not need to be a factor and that it is just necessary in lower-level cases. It is a pyramid. I get what you are saying.

Ms Sweeney: It is awkward because you have the lower-level offences, and if we are not recording at that level and somebody progresses to committing serious sexual violence or murder, we do not see that history. That is very important, as is getting to what are the current behaviours for —.

Ms Sheerin: Yes, the reason why they are acting as they are.

I have one more question, Chair, if that is OK. You mentioned that you would like to see a transphobia aggravator added as well. That was potentially in an earlier draft and had to be removed in order to get political clearance at the Executive. Do you have thoughts on whether it will be a missed opportunity if we cannot realistically get that added at a later stage?

Ms Sweeney: It definitely will be, because, as I said, it is a very quick addition to the Bill and a very quick fix. The police are already recording it as a hate crime and recording the data, so it will not take much to fix that. It should be included, yes.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your paper and your attendance, Karen. You might have heard that the Finance Minister announced this week that he is opening a consultation on Jade's law, which, hopefully, will lead to that being introduced. That is related to family law, which is dealt with by the Department of Finance. That seems to be how that will be taken forward.

When it comes to aggravators, we have two categories in the Bill: one for hostility and one for vulnerability. We have had this discussion with various witnesses. When the crime is committed by a male on a female, in what circumstances should the word "misogyny" apply? Should it always apply, or is it recognised as applying only in certain cases? Is it best described as a "hostility" towards women or as a "vulnerability" of women in circumstances where women will generally be weaker — physically weaker — than men, and therefore almost a form of bullying? I also have questions in my own head about whether disability should actually be classed as a hostility: is that not more of a vulnerability? Maybe that is not so much an issue for you. "Vulnerability" captures situations — it can include old age — where someone feels physically stronger and takes advantage. It is therefore almost a form of bullying to attack someone in a way that they would not do if the victim were able to physically defend themselves. What are your thoughts on how "misogyny" should be defined? Do you see it applying always or only in certain circumstances?

Ms Sweeney: First of all, we believe that it should be under "hostility", if that is what you are asking me, because women and girls are not vulnerable just by virtue of being women and girls: they become vulnerable as a result of societal influences and things that are done to them by others. They are not a vulnerable category. The vulnerable category in the Bill, as I read it, is that which we associate with people who are referred to in safeguarding legislation. For example, children are in there — anybody who is under 18 — and those with —. I cannot remember.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is "physical or mental disability".

Ms Sweeney: Yes, "physical or mental disability". I get what you are saying about disability, but disability could be broader than that. We definitely see misogyny belonging in the hostility category because, as I say, we are not vulnerable because we are women and girls but as a result of other factors. That is not all captured under "vulnerability". I think that it is just there to reflect our different groupings within safeguarding legislation.

Mr Kingston: When do you think that the aggravator should apply? Do you think that it should apply in any case where the man is the perpetrator and the woman is the victim of a crime, or do you see it applying only in certain circumstances? Would it have to be proven —? It is about how you define "misogyny". When could you say that such a crime that a man has perpetrated against a woman is not misogynistic?

Ms Sweeney: If we take misogyny or misogynistic behaviours and attitudes, we see that it starts with what people perceive to be low level. It has to be there. Making jokes, perpetuating myths and just saying, "boys will be boys" covers it up. We must address those low-level behaviours and attitudes because that is the root of violence against women and girls. Children are blank slates. They do not come into the world with preconceived notions of what women are and decide that they will pick on women. We have a patriarchal society, as we have had in the past. Children grow up in it. We need to address that. We are all working through the strategy and other programmes to eradicate that. Ideally, we want us all to live here in an equal society. However, data shows that there are inequalities for women and girls right across the sphere. Therefore, it has to be there. There is very little evidence that crimes are perpetrated against men because they are men, if you get what I mean, but there is lots of evidence of crimes against women and girls just because they are women and girls. That is because men feel that they have that right to control and exhibit that power and control. That has been perpetuated down through the years. I read an article that said that it goes back to the Stone Age, but I do not think that we have the evidence for that.

Mr Kingston: I suppose that, ultimately, the court would have to decide whether the aggravator applies.

Ms Sweeney: Yes, definitely, but we need to look at those matters. I might not be getting this point across, but we have to start early with those things, because we must accept that the pyramid shows that the behaviours that fall within sexual violence and gender-based violence, even those relating to domestic abuse and homicide, are part of a continuum. Therefore, they have to be addressed.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is a really important point. You say that you are opposed to the inclusion of females in the clause 36, "Aggravation by reason of vulnerability" category, because you maintain that women are not vulnerable because of the fact that they are women and girls. I take that point, but would including women and girls in that category not protect them more?

Ms Sweeney: Does doing that not compound what is already thought about women and girls being vulnerable? It labels them. Saying, "Women and girls are vulnerable, and that is why they get it" almost excuses those behaviours, so we have to call out the fact that women and girls are equal to men and boys, but they are impacted on by society and behaviours.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Because of society and through no fault of their own, does that not make them more vulnerable?

Ms Sweeney: That is what we are trying to address. "By reason of vulnerability" could mean that women and girls feel unsafe, if you want it to, but it does not fit into that category of vulnerability. We are striving for women and girls to be equal and not vulnerable. We should not even contemplate having the notion that they should be treated as vulnerable.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will give you my logic. If you include females in the "aggravation by reason of vulnerability" category, you could argue that most, if not all, women will be captured by that clause. If you put misogyny into the "aggravation by hostility" category in clause 33, a perpetrator's hatred of that woman would have to be proven in court. That is where the weakness is. There could well be a pattern of behaviour, as you said, such as text messages and social media posts that present that misogyny, which could then be used in a court of law against the perpetrator to prove hatred and hostility towards females. That might not happen in every case, but, if you put it in clause 36, that would capture — sorry, that is the wrong word here — most women. It would include most women.

Ms Sweeney: It still labels women as vulnerable.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Are you opposed to a distinct offence of femicide for that reason?

Ms Sweeney: I thought that we agreed that that is covered by other things.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Over the past weeks, the Committee has heard from presenters about whether it is a good idea to have an offence of femicide. However, you are pushing back and saying, "Women and girls are not vulnerable just because they are women and girls", so that might mean that the femicide offence is not required. Do you have any views on that?

Ms Sweeney: I would need to get back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is no problem. I do not want you to give me a misanswer, if you know what I mean.

Ms Sweeney: That is what I do not want to do.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You might wish to consider it at your group and come back to us.

I have one more question before I bring in Connie. If the "aggravation by reason of hostility" category in clause 33 were to include misogyny, which is, by definition, the hatred of females, would you be against an aggravator of misandry?

Ms Sweeney: Sorry?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): An aggravator of misandry, a hatred towards men.

Ms Sweeney: As I said, there is not a body of evidence of hatred against men. I am not even using the word "hatred", because, when we are talking about misogyny being included as an aggravator, we go back to the Scottish model, which, instead of using the word "hatred", defines misogyny as:

It does not define it as hatred. The definition of misogyny as of having no respect for women covers a lot more. It still covers offences and crimes, but it does not require an inherent hatred. Some of it is learned behaviour, and it also includes prejudice, malice and contempt, because there is no respect. The Minister also used the word "respect" yesterday.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you think that the impact of a misogyny aggravator would be lessened if there were a misandry aggravator?

Ms Sweeney: That is not for me to say. What we are saying is that a body of evidence shows that the majority of the crimes or offences that we are talking about are against women and girls. I do not have any other statistics here or the breakdown of these statistics, but the sexual violence statistics for 2024-25 show that, in 94·1% of those offences, the perpetrators were men. The same argument is not made on the other side. The misogyny aggravator is so that women and girls are seen as a protected group, just as race and religion and protected.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Nobody is disputing that big percentage of female victims. There are male victims too, and, even if male victims of such offences are a small minority and a minute number, if there were a misandry aggravator, they could be protected, and that would not affect female victims. Maybe you do not have a position on that, and that is fine.

Ms Sweeney: I will need to get back to you on that one.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, 100%. That is OK.

Ms Egan: I understand what you are saying. The way that the discussion has gone has maybe come across as being a bit confusing and complex. What are your and your organisation's thoughts on including femicide in the Bill? That is not in the Bill, and that has been brought up in the call for evidence and by other organisations. I am curious about your thoughts on that. You may have already answered that during the discussion.

Ms Sweeney: Do you mean femicide as a separate offence in the Bill? I would be giving a personal view on it.

Ms Egan: I understand.

Ms Sweeney: I do not know that I like the word "femicide".

Ms Egan: That is interesting.

Ms Sweeney: It is still murder. A woman has been murdered. Calling it femicide does not in any way change that fact. That is a personal view.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Of course. If you or your group does not have a position on something, it is quite right to say so.

Ms Egan: Especially when we are asking you about things that are not in the Bill, rather than things that are in it. It is fair enough if you do not have a position on that.

Ms Sweeney: I am not across it all. As I said, I am stepping in.

Ms Egan: Thank you. I appreciate your coming in.

Mr Bradley: I will bring in an old chestnut that is a bother of mine, and that is suspended sentences. What is your view on the use of suspended sentences for heinous crimes such as sexual and domestic abuse? Do you think that suspended sentences should not be used in those types of crimes? What is your assessment of that?

Ms Sweeney: Our preference is that they not be used for serious crimes. We support that suspended sentences not be used for sexual crimes and other serious domestic abuse issues. In the Katie Simpson case, the accused did not have a suspended sentence, but he was on bail. How was somebody who was accused of and charged with murder on bail? A judge made the decision, but we question how that was allowed to happen

Mr Bradley: We had a recent presentation that tried to explain some of the sentencing methodology, but I have great difficulty with suspended sentences, as do the general public. Do you agree that there is not enough information for the general public about why a sentence is suspended and not custodial?

Ms Sweeney: Yes, absolutely. There needs to be a lot more openness and transparency with the public, more training for the judiciary and simplified terms that the public can understand. The information should be open; if it is not, that leads to questions and the circulation of misinformation. The more open and transparent the judiciary can be, the better. We are not in favour of suspended sentences, because they carry the risk of repeated behaviour, and there is evidence of that in cases of stalking and sexual violence. That does not sit well with us. We do not agree with suspended sentences for serious crimes.

Mr Bradley: Yes. A suspended sentence does not reflect the gravity of the crime. Thank you.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your evidence today. I want to go back to the courts and your view on the need for judicial training. Maybe we can develop that a bit further. We often hear about cases in the media, and the attention is on whether the sentence has been appropriate. There will be various commentators discussing the sentence, and then we hear from the judiciary that not enough in-depth evidence was gathered before people commented on the case. Do the judiciary require significantly more training on sentencing or on communicating the sentence?

Ms Sweeney: There is a need for both. Under the Gillen review, there has been a lot more training on sexual violence. Training is being undertaken, and it is moving forward. However, training should be done on the definitions and impact of misogyny. A number of judges in England have been cited for showing misogynistic behaviours after being physically and verbally abusive to women. One judge had 10 complaints against him from different women about the way that he spoke to them when hearing their cases, and a review was done

or somewhere. For the public, it is about simplification and letting them know what is going on. There should be training for all levels of the judiciary. Unfortunately, we have heard that the PSNI has been called out for misogynistic behaviour. There needs to be more training on the terms used in sentencing, and there needs to be more training on how to be open and transparent with the public. I do not mean training the public; it is about the form of words that are used in the explanatory statements.

Mr McGlone: Does that require a legislative basis, or does it require some sort of mechanism whereby the judiciary can review this and make sure that the sentence is appropriate and is communicated appropriately? Is another mechanism required or some form of review where the sentencing has been proven to have gone wrong? Will it require a review mechanism other than the normal legal review of appeal to look at a decision made by a judge?

Ms Sweeney: To be honest with you, Patsy, I am not sure that I am best placed to answer that. I am not a legal person.

Mr McGlone: That is grand; that is all right. Thank you for that. Perhaps someone who gives you legal advice may be in the position to help us with that. I am sure that it would be useful, Chair, to get a submission.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, surely.

Ms Sweeney: You asked me about a mechanism to work on this. What do you mean? What is "this"?

Mr McGlone: Basically, when a judge has made a decision but it is acknowledged that the sentence is wrong, there could be some sort of mechanism to review how that could have gone wrong, and that mechanism would be cited in legislation. It would be other than a normal appeal: it would be a formal mechanism to review a decision to see how or whether it has gone wrong. Do you get where I am coming from?

Ms Sweeney: I understand you now.

Mr McGlone: It would be an alternative to putting somebody through all the trauma of an appeal and having to go back through the entire case. You will know much better than I do that there are instances where there are all sorts of sensitivities and hurt associated with that.

Ms Sweeney: It is about not re-traumatising victims and survivors. If I can find anything out or get any advice or views, I will bring that back to you.

Mr McGlone: That would be great, Karen, thank you.

Ms Finnegan: I will be brief. Thanks again for coming today and answering our questions, particularly given that it was very last-minute for you; God love you. Misogyny is deeply rooted and systemic, as you have said — it has been well discussed here — and is overwhelmingly directed at women and girls. How can a general sex or gender aggravator adequately address that reality? Is there a danger that a catch-all provision designed to create a false equivalence between misogyny and misandry would dilute the specific protections that women and girls need?

Ms Sweeney: We believe that it would. For the reasons that I have already given, we would not support that. It is a grouping, and, as you said, it would have a diluting effect. If it is not specific, it is not directed at the groupings of women and girls. We advocate that misogyny be the aggravator in this case.

Ms Finnegan: Very good; thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Is that you, Aoife?

Ms Finnegan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Everyone who wanted to ask a question has done so. Thank you very much for your attendance and time, Karen. We really value your commentary and your answers.

Ms Sweeney: I apologise for not being able to provide you with all the answers.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No, we would not expect you to. Do not worry about that. Thank you.