Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The witnesses providing evidence today are Geraldine Hanna, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, and Janice Bunting, the chief executive officer of Victim Support NI.

You are welcome to the Committee. Thank you very much for your attendance, Geraldine and Janice. You are doubling up today. You make a quare team, so we will not have any problems. Without further ado, I invite you to make an opening statement.

Ms Geraldine Hanna (Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime): Good morning, members. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence today on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. I welcome the Bill and support its overall aims. It represents the most significant sentencing reform in Northern Ireland for many years and contains a number of positive measures that have the potential to improve the transparency and consistency of and victim and public confidence in sentencing.

Before I turn to the substance of my remarks, it is important for me to acknowledge that many of the issues referenced in my submission relate to matters that are not currently contained in the Bill. That is largely because the policy development and consultation process that led to the Bill began some time ago, while many of the concerns now being raised by victims have emerged or become more prominent in the intervening period. I want to be clear that I do not wish to see the Bill delayed, diluted or fail to pass as a result of those observations. On the contrary, I welcome the Bill and believe that it should proceed following scrutiny. It would, however, be remiss of me in my role of representing victims' interests not to draw the Committee's attention to the issues where they are repeatedly raised by victims and where there may be opportunities through amendment or future reform to strengthen the sentencing framework further. My intention is therefore to assist the Committee in ensuring that we secure the strongest and most victim-focused legislation possible.

My central message is that sentencing must not only be fair and proportionate but be understood by victims and the wider public. Time and again, victims tell us that they struggle to understand how sentences are reached, why particular outcomes have been imposed and whether the harm that they have suffered has been properly recognised. For that reason, I strongly support measures in the Bill that promote transparency, require courts to explain their decisions and strengthen consistency in sentencing practice. I therefore support clearer access to sentencing remarks, greater transparency around suspended sentences and life sentence tariffs and reforms that ensure that victims are properly informed throughout the justice process.

I also highlight an issue that has come to my attention since I made my submission. It relates to clause 1(4)(b), which refers to:

when assessing proportionality. As is set out in my written evidence, I have significant concerns about the continued reliance on notions of good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing in cases involving domestic abuse, sexual offending or exploitation. Victims can understandably perceive that as diminishing the seriousness of the offence and the harm that they have experienced. I would therefore like to see such references prohibited at sentencing in domestic and sexual abuse cases. In that regard, I note the recent analysis by Professor Kevin J Brown of Queen's University, who argued that the inclusion of character in the proportionality assessment is problematic, because character is not necessarily relevant to culpability for a particular offence and risks blurring the distinction between assessing the seriousness of the offence and considering wider mitigation. He specifically questioned whether evidence of previous good character should diminish culpability in serious cases, such as those of child sexual abuse. Although my concerns stem primarily from a victim-centred perspective, there is a notable convergence between those concerns and Professor Brown's analysis of the sentencing framework, and his points lend further support to the removal of reference to character in any proportionality assessment.

In conclusion, I consider the Bill to be important and welcome. There are, however, opportunities to strengthen it further by ensuring that sentencing outcomes visibly acknowledge harm by limiting inappropriate reliance on good-character evidence in abuse-related cases and by placing victim understanding and confidence at the heart of the sentencing process.

I hope that those brief remarks were helpful. The Committee has my detailed written submission. I thank the Committee for sharing the response that it received from the Department of Justice on some of the issues that were raised with me yesterday evening. I am happy to take questions on any of those issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Geraldine, and thank you for being so concise. Janice, over to you.

Ms Janice Bunting (Victim Support NI): Good morning, Chair and members. I am also grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to contribute to its scrutiny of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. Victim Support Northern Ireland is the only all-crime agency in Northern Ireland that supports victims and witnesses of crime throughout their criminal justice journey, regardless of how long ago the crime took place or whether they reported it to the police.

In the past financial year, Victim Support NI has received 48,017 referrals from victims of crime across a range of crimes and ethnicities, supported 2,881 witnesses throughout their court attendance, assisted 635 witnesses with their victim personal statements and assisted 851 victims to make criminal injury compensation claims. In addition to our core services, our specialist services include the Hate Crime Advocacy Service (HCAS), sexual offences legal advisers (SOLAs) and children's sexual offences legal advisers (CSOLAs), and Phoenix Youth, which supports young people who have experienced aggression-related trauma in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust and Western Health and Social Care Trust areas. That uniquely positions Victim Support NI to hear, see and experience at first hand the challenges that victims face in navigating their criminal justice journey and the issues that matter most to them.

We welcome the fact that the Bill will bring into law a range of measures on sentencing in Northern Ireland. It is important to pay tribute to the incredible advocacy work done by the families of Charlotte Murray, Lisa Dorrian, Enda Dolan and Martin Gallagher, all of whom contributed to aspects of the Bill in order to get us to this place. We hope that the Bill will bring clarity, transparency and consistency to the criminal justice process, which may, in turn, contribute to rebuilding public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Committee has a copy of our submission, so I will concentrate on certain areas. The Bill refers to "ordinary language". Although we appreciate that that is aimed at the offender and that, at clause 1(2)(b), the words "including victims of crime" are incorporated, we would like to see further acknowledgement in the Bill that the ordinary language used extends to the victims and witnesses of crime as well as to offenders. We would also like to see the Victim Charter and Witness Charter in the text of the Bill in order to emphasise the importance of promoting and protecting the rights of victims.

Although I am happy to talk about any aspect of the Bill, I will, owing to time constraints, focus on the following two areas, which will, I hope, help the Committee in its deliberations, namely clauses 33 to 35, "Aggravation by hostility", and clause 36, "Aggravation by reason of vulnerability", which are in Part 6 of the Bill.

Victim Support NI is the lead partner of the Hate Crime Advocacy Service and assists victims of hate crime in partnership with our external advocacy partners Migrant Centre NI, the Rainbow Project NI and Disability Action NI. The service aims to support victims of hate and signal crimes, to encourage reporting and to increase confidence in and improve access to the criminal justice system. Since its inception, referrals to HCAS have grown year-on-year, with motivations in race and transgender identity experiencing the highest growth areas: race with a growth of 179% and transgender identity with a growth of 154%. Our average number of referrals since the inception of HCAS has increased from 81 a month in 2022 to 180 a month in the year to date.

Although provision exists for enhanced sentencing to be applied if the hostility motivation is proven, it is currently not in the indictment or charge; instead, the prosecutor presents the case as being aggravated by hostility, and a judge will make a finding. Unfortunately, statistics from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for 2024-25 show that less than 3% of hate crime cases proceeded to trial and that less than 1% resulted in convictions with enhanced sentencing for hate aggravation. The PPS has stated that the enhanced sentencing model has not operated as effectively as intended and that a different approach is now justified. We are in full agreement with that statement.

By ensuring that the aggravator is considered up front and contained in the charge, clear weight will be given to the recognition of the harm that victims have suffered from the beginning of the process. We hope that that will send a clear message to the wider community that hate-motivated offending is not tolerated in our society. The fact that, if proven, the offence will be recorded on a person's criminal record will hopefully give victims and communities confidence that the principles of sentencing under clause 1(2)(a) and (c) are being recognised.

We welcome the fact that the hate crime aggravators will include the protected characteristics of race, religion, sexual orientation and disability. It is, however, disappointing that the Bill has such a narrow focus, which suggests to us that we are still some way from the full implementation of the reforms that Judge Marrinan recommended in 2020. We therefore ask the Committee to consider the inclusion of four specific areas that are not referenced in the Bill. First, on transgender identity, we acknowledge that, although the number of hate crimes against transgender individuals remains small, the number of referrals to our service is increasing year-on-year. We urge that further consideration be given to the inclusion of transgender identity as a separate category. Excluding it from the Bill will potentially compromise the consistency of the legal framework, as it fails to recognise all forms of identity-based hostility equally. Secondly, we note that sex and gender is not included as a protected characteristic in the Bill, and we would like it to be added. Thirdly, we fully appreciate the difficulties in the Northern Ireland context of settling on a specific definition of "sectarianism". While HCAS has noted a somewhat downward trend since April 2026, the figures have started to climb again. We believe it to be a missed opportunity not to address that unique form of hate crime in the Bill in this mandate, but we recognise and appreciate the complexities involved. Fourthly, on intersectionality, HCAS already receives police referrals that record two or more motivations, with separate specialist advocates supporting each. We therefore urge the Committee to ensure that the Bill reflects Judge Marrinan's recommendation for an intersectional lens to account for offences that are aggravated by one or more protected characteristics so that the charge and the outcome match what victims experience.

I will now turn my attention to the proposed statutory aggravator based on vulnerability. Through our work with victims, we know that there are certain factors that make individuals or groups more vulnerable than others and therefore more likely to be victimised. We commend the Department of Justice for recognising the serious nature of offences committed against vulnerable victims, including children and those with an impaired ability to protect themselves. Establishing vulnerability as a statutory aggravator will send a strong message that such offences are not tolerated in our society. Although the introduction of a vulnerable victim aggravator is a positive step forward in recognising the insidious nature of the crime, there should be greater cognisance of the varying needs of those vulnerable victims as they navigate the criminal justice system. That should also include the fact that they are often subject to repeated victimisation.

The Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report from 2020 called for a more evolved needs assessment process that, while designed to capture the needs of all victims, could pay particular attention to the needs of vulnerable groups and individuals. Sadly, although some work is being done some four years on, that recommendation has still not been achieved. Moving to an enhanced needs assessment model may help address some of the issues outlined by previous contributors who have expressed their concerns that the breadth of the definition of "vulnerability" may create uncertainties for investigators and prosecutors about when the aggravator should be applied. A clear definition of what constitutes a vulnerable victim could result in victims' needs being appropriately identified and supported as early as possible in the criminal justice process.

Finally, I stress the need for additional resources and sustainable funding to support the delivery of the Bill in a manner that supports victims' participation, builds their confidence and, ultimately, assists in the recovery.

I thank the Committee for its time today, and I hope that my comments will be of some assistance. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Janice, for making a concise statement. I will go straight to members.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Geraldine and Janice, for this early start.

Geraldine, you talked about character references: I am on record as saying that character references should play no part in court proceedings, be that while hearing the evidence or post conviction. Where do you sit from the perspective of victims? Do you believe that character references should be completely taken out of the system or that there should be qualifying offences for which such references should never be heard?

Ms Hanna: I appreciate that it is a complex issue when we look at its breadth. What can be more cleanly and easily achieved in this mandate is to look at a prohibition of good-character references at sentencing in domestic and sexual abuse cases. That it happens at the sentencing stage is the issue that people talk to me about most. When it comes to those offences in particular, we know that good character is a shield that is often used by perpetrators to reinforce the silence that is being enforced on the victim. There is a distinct and clear argument to be made against character references, and I see no merit in their use in such cases at sentencing.

More broadly, the use of good-character evidence as part of the hearing process is a more complex matter. I suspect that there will be stronger arguments for it in that sphere, which may have merit. I say "may", because I am not legally qualified, but there may be stronger arguments for using it as part of the trial process. If the Committee were minded to consider its removal and if there were a debate to be had in that regard, I would suggest that we look at handling the introduction of good-character evidence in the trial process in the same way as we handle the introduction of bad-character evidence in the trial process, which requires consideration by a judge and a debate to be held in advance of the trial itself. If the judge determined that it was not appropriate for that good-character evidence to be part of the trial, they would rule accordingly, and the victim would not have to hear it. There may, however, be strong arguments around article 6 rights for the continued use of such evidence in the trial process, be it at the pre-trial application stage or in the trial. As I said, I am not legally qualified, but we have an opportunity through the Bill to make a clear statement that good-character references have no part to play at the sentencing stage of domestic and sexual violence cases. I urge the Committee to consider that.

Ms Bunting: There is nothing in there with which I disagree. I am not legally qualified either, but, given that their sexual history, for example, can be brought into play at sentencing, victims tell us that it is conflicting for them to have to listen to someone's character being expounded on in sexual violence cases. It is difficult for them to hear that. The commissioner designate's response should be considered, bearing in mind that our sexual offences legal advisers and children's sexual offences legal advisers tell me that those are difficult things for victims to hear and have to stomach at the end of a trial.

Mr Beattie: If we want to take action in that regard, there will have to be an amendment to the Bill. There is nothing in there at the minute.

Janice, we are talking about victims understanding the sentence that is handed down. I am not going to get on my soapbox about a sentencing council; I have talked about that often enough. Judgements that are given by judges are complicated and really hard to understand, however. Would you be in favour of a written judgement being issued within 24 hours or immediately? What would be best?

Ms Bunting: The written judgement —.

Mr Beattie: In language that is understandable, of course.

Ms Bunting: Yes. You will have heard me say that there is a reference in the Bill to using "ordinary language" when explaining matters to the offender: that has to apply to victims and witnesses as well. Victims need to be able to read and understand the information that they receive. They often tell us about how legalistic the language is. They do not understand it, and it confuses them. In many ways, following the crime that was committed against them, that legalistic language continues to disempower them. I understand that, in certain instances, legalistic language has to be used, but there should be a way in which victims can have the judgement handed down in language that they understand more fully so that they can ask questions. Sometimes, if the language is very legalistic, victims do not know what they do not know, because they are trying to power through the legal aspects of the judgement to see how it affects them and to understand whether justice has been served. We would very much welcome something that provides certainty, clarity and transparency when sentences are handed down.

You asked about the time frame. We want to see judgements issued sooner rather than later, but I appreciate that there are resource considerations, so it is for the Department to decide. We want victims to be able to see the sentencing remarks and the judgement but in language that they understand.

Mr Beattie: I have one final question. I am not going to get into pre-release testing for life tariff prisoners, because that is in the news and somebody else might want to ask about it. I am looking at sentencing from the victim's point of view. The victim could go through the anguish of a trial and see a conviction secured, only for the perpetrator to refuse to turn up for the sentencing remarks. What effect does that have on victims? Should we look at having a mechanism to ensure that perpetrators who have been found guilty turn up to hear the sentence being passed?

Ms Hanna: As you know, I flagged that in my submission, and I have noted the Department's response to the Committee on that. The issue has not come across my desk in Northern Ireland yet. Going by the evidence from England and Wales, however, I suspect that it may happen, particularly as we continue to see improvements to and developments in the rights for victims to read out a victim personal statement in the court, which is something that I would like to see enshrined in legislation. We could end up in that position.

We know that perpetrators not turning up for the sentencing remarks has had a profound and damaging impact on the families of people in England and Wales. The refusal of perpetrators of some of the most heinous cases, such as murder cases, including the murder of children, to attend their sentencing hearing was viewed as an insult to the families. The judiciary, of course, has a contempt of court option at its disposal, but, by considering it in legislation, we would ensure that the judiciary had all the powers that it needed. In England and Wales, following a lot of work by families and the Victims' Commissioner there, they have come up with a proposal that will ensure that the judge can take a perpetrator's refusal to attend the hearing into consideration as part of their sentencing and potentially increase the sentence as a result. We should look at having that for Northern Ireland.

Ms Bunting: I was struck by the case of a victim who was at our conference in February and made a statement about his victim personal statement. That case links directly to your question in this way: the victim said that, when the defendant has the right to remain silent, the victim should have the right to be heard. That links directly to victim personal statements and the fact that the reason that a victim wants to be heard is that they want the defendant to hear what the impact was. Although the defendant will hear the evidence and the facts of a case at the trial hearing, they will not hear, during the victim's testimony, about the impact on them. For the defendant to be able to hear about the impact on the victim is extremely important. For many victims, it is a question of, "Is this another power play? Is this another way in which the defendant can harm me?". Although it is not prevalent in Northern Ireland at the moment, it is important that we future-proof the legislation and that the opportunity be presented to do that so that we do not close the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need to deal with the issue now to allow for there to be repercussions for the defendant if they wilfully decide not to attend sentencing when the victim is also there to watch the sentencing.

Ms Hanna: The individual about whom Janice spoke talked about reading his victim personal statement as the first step on his healing journey. We can never underestimate the power, for some victims, of being able to tell their perpetrator, in a court environment, of the harm that they have caused to them.

Mr Beattie: That may be the point that I am making. It is not about just turning up to hear the judge passing sentence and make their sentencing remarks but about hearing the personal statement from the victim, which is incredibly important. It is a combination of things.

Ms Hanna: Exactly, and that is why it is so important that we put that right and entitlement to read out a victim personal statement on the statute book.

Ms Bunting: Yes.

Mr Beattie: Thank you.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance and your papers. We have had some feedback on clause 1(2)(b), which is under "Purposes and principles of sentencing: adults". It states:

Some have said that, quite often, the victim of the crime is a particular person who needs protection, rather than being included with the general public. Do you have a view on that?

Ms Hanna: It is helpful that we have named victims of crime; it may not be overly helpful that they are in the bracket. Maybe, if anything, you could reverse it: "the protection of victims and the public". Obviously, that is a drafting issue.

Ms Bunting: As it sits, it is welcome that it is included in the Bill. However, I am concerned that it looks like an afterthought, when that is not the intention. However, that is why we have said that there may be an opportunity to include references to the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter, which also provide protections to victims and witnesses, and to state categorically that those protections are available.

Mr Kingston: Thank you. People often feel that suspended sentences are not sufficient punishment for a crime. I understand that there cannot currently be a community requirement with a suspended sentence, but the Bill would enable that, which would at least increase the consequences of the crime and put a focus on rehabilitation and character reform. What is your view of how suspended sentences are currently viewed and how that can be enhanced through the Bill?

Ms Hanna: Victims will often struggle to understand suspended sentences, and, if it has reached the threshold, they will query it. I very much welcome the inclusion of the community requirement as part of that, and it certainly has the potential to ensure that, if it is appropriately explained to the victim what the requirement means and, significantly, what happens if there is a breach of such suspended orders — that that is appropriately dealt with — that helps to reassure victims. I am also conscious that other witnesses have talked about suspended sentences with community orders as being inappropriate in certain cases. I am loath to curtail the type of crime in that regard, but I recognise that it can be hard to get our heads around why a suspended sentence would ever be appropriate in cases of domestic and sexual violence, and that is a legitimate and understandable concern.

One thing that we could do under the clause is include a statutory presumption against its use in such cases, but, where they are to be used, the judge would have to explain why they thought that it was appropriate. Also, where suspended sentences are to be used, rather than the phrase "may" have a community order, it should be "must" have a suspended sentencing order. In that way we would be trying to address the genuine concern that, if something meets the custody threshold in a domestic and sexual abuse case, it should be in court. It might also give judges a bit more discretion with regard to some of the more extraordinary cases but would still send out the message that it would not be deemed appropriate in the majority of our domestic and sexual violence cases.

The other thing to be said about the clause is that, if we introduce something that will put more community orders and suspended sentencing orders into the domain, we need to ensure that the Probation Board is appropriately resourced to deliver on that. The last thing we want is for victims to be given an explanation of why a suspended sentence order is appropriate and then find out that the resources required to appropriately monitor and deliver that order are not in place.

Ms Bunting: We endorse that on the basis of the conversations that we have with victims. Unfortunately, some victims regard the suspended sentence as a slap on the wrist, because they want to see more punitive measures being taken. We welcome the community orders. I will go further and say that I would love victims to have some sort of input into the community order because, in many instances, they know their offender, particularly in cases of domestic violence.

Mr Kingston: Input into what? The conditions?

Ms Bunting: Input into what the community order is about. For example, you mentioned rehabilitation: victims are not against that, but, in many instances, they know the offender better than anyone. If that is an appropriate vehicle or if they are likely not to follow through with it, victims will have a view on that. They will be the experts in the room, because, in domestic violence cases, it has happened to them.

There has to be a clear pathway so that victims are aware of what happens if the offender breaches an order. All too often, victims say to us when, for example, non-molestation orders are breached, no action is taken and those orders, which are legal instruments, are breached again and again. In order to build victims' confidence, that needs to happen from the get-go. You need to take account of learning from other areas in relation to how it should work out. If there are breaches, they need to be dealt with early and in the way that, the judge says, they should be dealt with. A victim needs to know how a breach will be dealt with. I agree with the commissioner that the Probation Board needs to be properly resourced, because it is really important.

You have mentioned that it is about rehabilitation as well. We are not against that, but, often, the impact of the crime for a victim means that they also need some sort of rehabilitative work. I am concerned that someone will say, "Look, the offender is getting support with that, and I welcome that, but I have been waiting for months and months for counselling for the harm that happened to me". Given that the Bill talks about fairness and proportionality, there is also a read-across to fairness and proportionality in what is available to victims to enable them to cope with the harm that has happened to them.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Janice, you touched on the aggravators relating to hostility and vulnerability: there has been a lot of discussion of that topic among Committee members and witnesses. Have you had any suggestion from victims that they feel that, if an aggravator is not applied in their case, the crime is somehow diminished? Do they feel that the same crime would have had more severe consequences, had it happened to somebody who was in a protected group? Maybe that feeling does not arise, but I want to check, because the Bill creates a disparity by saying that, if a crime is done to people from certain groups, there will be a higher sentence.

Ms Bunting: When victims report a hate crime or a hate incident, that is how they perceive it. They will perceive it in that way and report that, "I was targeted for a particular reason. I was targeted because of my skin colour. I was targeted because of my orientation". That is what they believe, and that is what, their experience tells them, has happened to them. When that is not recognised in that way and the aggravator is not applied — I have already given statistical information that the PPS put out — that has a diminishing effect on them. Again, that element is not necessarily considered until the end. Putting the hostility aggravator on the face of the indictment will give victims confidence, because they say to us, "I was a victim of a hate crime, and that hate crime element has not been recognised". All too often, victims say, "Have I not proven that I was a victim of a hate crime?".

Victims and witnesses in court, in many categories of crime, carry a lot of self-blame. They feel that they have to prove that they have been a victim. It is not on them to do so. They feel that it diminishes — it does — the experience that they have had. They will still exit that court with someone having got a conviction for common assault, but, if the aggravator has not been applied, the victim will still exit the court and say, "I was a victim of a hate crime". Putting that up front so that they can see it and so that it can be tried and tested will give them greater confidence.

Ms Hanna: While I have never heard it from a victim, I recognise that, for some, there may be a concern that protecting some groups in law and having hostility towards those groups as a sentence aggravator may seem like having a hierarchy of victims. My view on that is that this is our way in law of recognising the broader harm. It is not about placing a victim in a hierarchy compared with another: every victim deserves the rights and entitlements and needs to be treated fairly. They need to see offenders receiving sentences that are proportionate and fair. This is a way in law for us to recognise the additional harm that is caused more broadly than that individual and the broader piece into the community. For me, it is not about a hierarchy of victimhood; it is around the law appropriately recognising the additional harm caused by such offending. We have seen that when we looked at the public workers and previous legislation around emergency workers. It is not a new concept for us in the law.

Ms Bunting: I go back to the intention of the Bill, which is also to build public confidence. Hate crime continues to be under-reported. Therefore, if people, to coin a popular phrase, "can't see it, they can't be it". If they cannot see that the courts are attaching the aggravator and cannot see hate crime being recognised in that way, it is a loss of confidence for victims, because they will ask, "What is the point in coming forward to report this? It is not actually going to be recognised".

Ms Hanna: It is also useful to keep it in mind — I know that the Committee is aware of it — that the clauses are very welcome and will, hopefully, help towards that confidence piece. However, when it comes to addressing issues such as hate crime, we need a lot more outside of this room and outside of this law. It is a societal change, and this is our justice system's way of playing its part. That requires leadership and determination from the whole Assembly and society in general. This is welcome in taking that forward, but it will not be the panacea.

Mr Kingston: One more question, Chair, if I may. Janice, one of the areas that you highlighted was sex and gender. We have debated the options about that being seen as a "hostility" or a "vulnerability". Some have said that, if you put female gender as a "vulnerability", that somehow diminishes women. Often, though, that is the factor. If a man is committing the crime, he feels that he can physically dominate the female, but, as I say, some take exception to people saying that being female is a vulnerability. Last week, some women's groups said that they would prefer that to be down as a "hostility", even if that means that it applies to a smaller number of cases, because it has to be proven that that was a factor in the thinking of the perpetrator. If we were to include that as a "hostility", should it be gender-neutral? Should it potentially apply to men and women — both misogyny and misandry?

Ms Bunting: It is a complex area. I do not need to tell the Committee that misogyny and violence against women and girls are so prevalent in our society. In some of our submissions, we have said that you just have to turn on the news or look at your social media feeds to see how that is happening. You will be well aware of the horrific instances of femicide in Northern Ireland. More needs to be done to understand the reasons behind that and to take significant steps to address them.

We need to be clear about what misogyny is and is not. The Human Rights Commission indicates that:

Therefore, in many instances, we would argue, a statutory misogyny aggravator should be included and may be a more accurate safeguard. We would prefer that women and trans people were protected under hate crime law in that way. Ultimately, however, with the passage of the Bill, we would like to see whatever way that can happen to make it legally feasible, because there is still a lot of work to be done. We are an all-crime agency, so we support men, women and children, but, obviously, there is a greater emphasis on violence against women and girls, which happens more readily. We are not opposed to having separate aspects to that, but a lot of work needs to be done to make sure that it is legally feasible. I know that Judge Marrinan, in his hate crime review, landed on the idea of sex and gender as a way to include something: it is about how you can build on that.

Ms Hanna: I am averse to including women and girls under the vulnerability aggravator as it sits, because it implies that women are inherently vulnerable. That is not the case, and we risk sending out the wrong message. For several reasons, I am much more wedded to the proposal to introduce an "aggravated by reason of misogyny" clause. The first reason is that it will clearly send a message to society about what we are trying to address, which is violence against women and children or violence against women and girls in terms of the Government's priority. The First Minister and deputy First Minister's strategic priority in that regard and the whole Assembly's commitment to ending violence against women and girls can be best demonstrated in law by having an aggravator that names misogyny. That is the better way of addressing the issues. I appreciate that such an offence may be hard to prove, but, equally, it will have to pass the same threshold as in the other clauses in the Bill. By even putting it in as a vulnerability, we could unintentionally make that broader than it is. Could any crime against a female be aggravated by reason of vulnerability? We are trying to address people who target women because they are women. Therefore, misogyny is the better aggravator.

When it comes to the counter to that — should you also have a clause on misandry — I do not think so. We do not have an evidence base that suggests that that is an issue in our society, and, by including both, we risk sending out the wrong message. One of the challenges that I face in this role is that, when I do a media appearance — radio, TV or whatever — and talk about violence against women and girls, the first thing that I get is, "Well, what about men? What about male victims?". I have invested quite a bit of our resource into examining violence against men and boys, and there are really clear issues there, particularly around domestic abuse and intimate partner violence where men are the victims. There is a lot of work to be done there. When I talk about violence against men and boys in the media, I get, "Well, what about the women?". For me, it is not zero sum, and our approach should not be that we need both in the Bill.

We need to go where the evidence leads us, and one of the underpinning foundations of why we have violence against women and girls is misogyny, so that is what we should address. I do not believe that there is an evidence base to suggest that misandry is the underpinning reason for violence against men and boys. If that develops in the future, we will address it, but, by stating it as "aggravated by reason of misogyny" in the Bill, we will send out a clear message about what the issues are and what we are trying to address while recognising the same point as I made about hate crime: it will not be a panacea. The issue of violence against women and children is a societal one, and we all need to work hard, show leadership and play our part in addressing it.

Ms Bunting: I want to be clear as well that "misogyny" is our preferred terminology in the Bill. At the start of our presentation, Geraldine said that we did not want the Bill to be delayed in any way. It is important that it passes in this mandate. We need to ensure that we are not passing legislation in a hurry and are doing it correctly, but our preferred indicator is misogyny.

Mr Kingston: I am still thinking through that issue. We had a presentation from a men's support group who said that domestic violence against men is often not recognised and that men are victims of domestic violence. There was also talk about "psychological impairment from coercive control"; that is how he phrased it. That is particularly related to issues around children. That issue is not recognised in the same way in society. We do not want people who are suffering from that to feel that they are being overlooked.

Ms Hanna: I support that assertion. We have commissioned Queen's University to undertake two pieces of research looking at the experiences of male victims of domestic abuse and their needs. There are certainly a range of needs for male victims when it comes to support services. There are issues in our family courts for fathers and mothers. There is work ongoing.

I have spoken to the Committee about our 'Totally Invisible' report. There is definitely more that needs to be done to support male victims of domestic and sexual abuse. However, I do not believe that "aggravated by reason of misandry" is anywhere near the top of the list in that respect. We need to ensure that there are appropriate support services; we need that public recognition; we need to work hard to address the barriers; and we need to address some of the patriarchal underpinnings that create barriers to men coming forward to disclose that they have been victims of domestic and sexual abuse.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Girls are covered by vulnerability in clause 36, because it says:

but so are boys. That reads really well. I get your point: you could argue that we need a misogyny part — that the offence is aggravated by misogyny. However, if you were to have a misandry one that was removed from misogyny — not "misogyny or misandry" but misogyny in its own part and misandry in its own part — surely, if that misandry piece were to help even one man, it would be worth it. Even if it was not used again for many years, it still would have helped a victim.

Ms Hanna: I appreciate the intention, but my concern is that that could dilute the "aggravated by reason of misogyny" piece and the messaging. One of the things that I talk about in my submission is denunciation being a purpose of sentencing and how our laws send out that message. The aggravators when it comes to the protected groups, the hostility aggravators and the aggravator by reason of vulnerability all send out a clear message that, if you target someone because of the group that they belong to, we, as a society, condemn that. It is the same if you were to attack someone because they are seen as being less able to defend themselves because of a vulnerability: if that is proven, your sentence will be enhanced. Putting in misandry at the same time as we put in misogyny would mean that we are not sending the message that we are trying to address when we talk about ending violence against women and girls, which would make me nervous. I have not come across such a case yet. I am not saying that there are no cases, of course; I am sure that there are examples. However, I worry that the evidence is not there yet.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If you were to include hostility by sex, surely that would cover misogyny.

Ms Hanna: Do you mean aggravated by reason of sex?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Ms Hanna: That would be more all-encompassing, but I note that we have not included sex and gender in the protected groups. I wonder whether that might turn into a further debate that causes dissention that could hold up the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is about the difference in definition between "sex" and "gender", for argument's sake. Sex is basically male and female. If you were to have a hostility related to sex, which is male and female, that would cover it.

Ms Hanna: It would cover both, but are you thinking that it would be separate, or would it sit under one of the protected groups?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It would be included in clause 33 beside race, religion, sexual orientation and disability.

Ms Hanna: I do not want to get overly conceptual or ideological about the debate around hate crime, but I wonder about including a grouping that covers everybody when our current "aggravated by hostility" particularly focuses on minority groups. You will have race or sexual orientation. I would like to see transgender in there as well. However, if it is sex and gender, it is everybody.

I wonder, therefore, whether including that would risk diluting hate crime. I would be concerned —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Point taken.

Clause 33(2) states:

Subsection 1 is the list that I just read out. At paragraph (a), however, clause 33 continues:

That is a very high threshold of proof. A police officer would not be able to go through a Facebook account and use a post that someone put up a month ago saying, for instance, that they hate all women, because that was not posted at the time of committing the offence or immediately beforehand. It could be really hard to prove.

Ms Hanna: It may be either that the word "immediately" needs to be changed or that its meaning needs to be clarified. Of course, you would not want someone to use a Facebook post from 20 years ago that someone posted when they were 17 in order to demonstrate that they have hostility towards a certain group, and that was the only example used. However, you can see how a post from months beforehand could —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Pattern of behaviour.

Ms Hanna: Yes. I think that there is merit in further exploring what is meant by "immediately" and defining it or whether it could be removed. Removing it altogether may leave it too broad, because it would just say "before", and that could mean ad infinitum.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I believe that that is how probable cause is built up.

Ms Hanna: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If probable cause cannot be used, it will be very hard to prove.

Ms Hanna: I fully support all efforts to increase the usefulness of the legislation for proving the motivation. This is welcome, but it is still a threshold. When trying to prove the hostility aggravation, it is helpful to have the evidence for that named in legislation so that, when police are looking for evidence, they are alive to that. It is also helpful so that the prosecution can include it in a charge and for a jury to make a determination on it in court. We need to make it as easy as possible to achieve the threshold whilst recognising the perpetrator's rights to a fair trial — their article 6 rights.

Ms Egan: Thank you both for coming in; we really appreciate it. Geri, I am interested in what is in your submission about including "denunciation" in the principles of sentencing in clause 1. Will you speak a wee bit more about that and your thoughts behind seeking its inclusion?

Ms Hanna: I welcome the principles on the functions of sentencing being written into legislation. That goes some way towards helping to address our concerns about the understanding of sentencing by victims and the public. I am appreciative of the functions that are already included, notwithstanding the fact that we need to look at "character ... of the offender" being included at clause 1(4)(b) in relation to the proportionality test.

By including "denunciation" in those principles, we would not just be saying that sentencing has a role in punishment, rehabilitation and deterrents; we would be clarifying in law that sentences are a way for us to send a message to society. That really validates the societal condemnation piece. We see sentencing used in such a way. We see that, for example, in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. In fact, in one of her appeal court judgements on a domestic abuse case, the Lady Chief Justice referred to the legislators' intent when introducing the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act. That is there, and it helps to clarify that it is part of the reason. It also underpins the rationale for having aggravators. We are sending out that message as a society.

Given that we are trying to end violence against women and girls — that is a stated priority — I hope that we will include "aggravated by reason of misogyny" or something else that would address that issue. That is as well as the hate crime piece that Janice talked about and the message that that sends to people on confidence. Including "denunciation" will mean that judges are mindful of that when delivering their sentencing remarks. That will, hopefully, help to build confidence in the system, and reinforce the legislators' intent.

Ms Egan: Are you on the same page on that, Janice?

Ms Bunting: Yes, 100%. We agree with that being one of the principles, for all the reasons that Geraldine stated, which I will not rehash. This is about building victims' confidence to be able to come forward and to take that step. That is important: you cannot underestimate the bravery of a victim who decides to come forward and report a crime committed against them, particularly one of domestic and sexual violence. You want them to be able to see that the full suite of principles in law is recognised in that regard. Therefore, we have no issue with "denunciation" being included.

Ms Egan: You both want to see additional aggravators in the Bill. Janice, your organisation runs the Hate Crime Advocacy Service. Will you speak a bit more about what you think it would mean for victims of that kind of crime if they were properly recognised in the Bill?

Ms Bunting: The Hate Crime Advocacy Service was established in its current form in 2022. As I mentioned earlier, there has been significant growth in the advocacy service, year on year. We are in our last year — the service is due to end in March 2027 — and we hope that it will be able to continue. Since the service started in 2022, we have noted that more and more people are coming forward. That is welcome, but it puts pressure on our resources. As I mentioned earlier, the service has grown, year on year. The greatest increase has been in cases related to race, where there has been a 179% growth. We had 450 referrals in 2022-23, and in 2025-26 we have had 1,254. It is the same with cases related to transgender identity. We started with 13 referrals in 2022-23, and that has gone up to 33.

It makes a difference to the people who engage with the Hate Crime Advocacy Service, in that they have an advocate who stays with them throughout their criminal justice journey. That advocate helps them with aspects of that journey, whether that is in relation to housing or enquiries to the police about where their case is. That advocate stays with them and is able to support them when they go to court and when they are handed over to the witness service. As you will know, Victim Support's witness service supports all victims who go to court and who wish to take up that service.

The service has been growing, developing and evolving, and it has been pivotal in raising the issue of hate crime in Northern Ireland and bringing it to the fore. It is a service that we would like to see continue beyond March 2027. It is important that it does so, given that our race riots, for example, in the past three years have been significant. The service lets victims know that they are not going to be alone, that they are not going to be unsupported and that someone is going to journey with them throughout their criminal justice process.

Ms Egan: It is a brilliant service.

Ms Bunting: Thank you.

Ms Egan: You mentioned the rise in hate crimes against people who are transgender. That is a concern. It was in the original draft of the Bill, but, obviously, it is not there anymore. The police are already recording that rise. I am concerned that it is not in the Bill, considering that we have that rise and evidence base.

Ms Bunting: I pay tribute to our partners. The Hate Crime Advocacy Service could not be delivered as effectively if we were not working with the range of partners that we are working with. The Rainbow Project, for example, wants to see trans people included in the Bill, as do we. There is also the idea of intersectionality, which cuts across disability, as well as other aspects. The police are already reporting to us that victims of hate crime are presenting with two or more characteristics. Again, it goes back to a person's lived experience. They do not want to see one thing recognised. They want to see the whole thing recognised, because they will still say, "This has been a hate crime to me, and it has affected me in this area, this area and this area". There should be a way in law to recognise that.

Ms Hanna: I fully endorse what has been said about the inclusion of crimes against those who are transgender. It is in our submission. Janice outlined some of the statistics in her opening remarks. The percentage of the transgender community that is targeted is disproportionate. It may be small in number, but the community is very vulnerable to attack. To go back to my denunciation piece, this is a way to send out a societal message in that regard.

Intersectionality needs to be recognised, and I note that Judge Marrinan recommended that. I wonder whether there is merit in exploring whether there should be a point in the clause that recognises that something can be aggravated by more than one of the hostilities. It is not the case, of course, that, if it has been proven that the threshold for being aggravated by hostility has been passed because of someone's race as well as their having a disability, there would be a double sentence — judges would still apply their totality principle — but it is about the recognition for victims that Janice eloquently outlined and their being able to say, "What has happened to me is wrong, society believes that it is wrong, and that can be noted". Maybe there is a way of addressing intersectionality with another point in the clause.

Ms Egan: Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for your presentations, Janice and Geraldine. This morning has made clear how important it is to call out misogyny and legislate on it and, likewise, to protect transgender identity.

Building victims' confidence in the sentencing process is critical, so I will focus on that. Do the proposed community requirements make suspended sentences more credible from a victim's perspective?

Ms Hanna: They do, because they make the sentences stronger. The Bill provides for work to be undertaken by the offender, and that would give victims reassurance that the sentence is not just a slap on the wrist and a case of, "If you keep your nose clean for x length of time, it's fine", because it would place a requirement on the offender. You will have heard as much as I have about the research on the impact of short sentences. It is about having a more robust community order that is appropriately resourced and has clear mechanisms for there to be repercussions if it is breached. Consideration needs to be given to how we can use GPS tracking as part of that — in Northern Ireland, we are still behind the times on that — but the use of the community order would help strengthen such sentences and, hopefully, serve the purpose of sentencing for rehabilitation.

Ms Bunting: I will go back to what I said earlier. In the past, our victims have felt that suspended sentences are a slap on the wrist. The Bill creates an alternative to that, which we can explain to victims when we support them. From a victim's perspective — we work with victims daily — it will be vital to know what will happen if the order is breached and whether there is a way in which they can contribute to what is proposed so that they feel that they can participate in the process, given that the harm has happened to them. Those are avenues to be explored. The ultimate test, when it is placed in statute, as I hope it will be, will be how the statutory authorities respond to breaches; how that is communicated to victims; and how they understand what the sentence means and what is expected of the perpetrator.

Ms Ferguson: It is important that the judge's rationale be distilled so that people can understand it and that an ordinary person would not be shocked or confused by the sentence or another outcome. Have you any thoughts on how that can be improved?

Ms Hanna: My big proposal on that is to ensure that there is free access to sentencing remarks. I must pay credit to our judiciary for the change that there has been in recent times. There is now a clear, concerted effort on the part of judges to explain their sentencing much more clearly, particularly in Crown Court cases, and I can see in the sentencing guidance that that is definitely the intention. I would be supportive of a new sentencing body for Northern Ireland. I am looking at Doug, because I am sure that you have heard him wax lyrical about that. We need to go further in making sentencing guidance cases more accessible to the public.

Leaving that aside, however, we can look at free access. Victims can now access transcripts of court proceedings, but they have to pay a considerable amount of money to do so. Crown Court judges especially, particularly in cases concerning more serious crimes such as murder or sexual offences, have detailed sentencing remarks that they have, quite often, written up. Introducing a right for victims to get that is important. I appreciate that the Department has set up a working group to look at that; I have sat on a working group on that issue. I appreciate that there are issues around the resources that are required, but if we introduce an enabling power to permit the Department to develop a process by which victims can access transcripts free of charge, we may add a little bit of pace to that work. We have been talking about that for some time, and I am really keen to see us move forward. England and Wales have piloted that, and they have had less take-up than they thought, so they have expanded that even further.

I am very supportive that we start with certain types of crime, but I am also conscious that, at the moment, where we have judges who have typed up their notes, we need to find a way to easily transmit those to victims who choose to receive them. That will help to outline the judge's thinking. Any effort that we can make to improve understanding of the language that is used is to be welcomed. However, I believe that judges are mindful of that, and it would focus minds if they knew that, potentially, more victims would be asking to see those notes.

Ms Ferguson: What are your thoughts on the training for judicial office holders, so that they can be more sensitive and more confident when communicating decisions to lay persons?

Ms Hanna: The judiciary will probably roll its eyes when it hears me saying this, but I am all for judicial training. [Laughter.]

Of course, the Judicial Studies Board plays a role there, and I do not believe that it is averse to that. We can learn how to better communicate, and certainly to victims. Let us look at our work in relation to family courts. As part of their pathfinder model, England and Wales worked with children to develop a training tool for judges — a toolkit for judges — as to how to communicate to a child the judge's decision in those cases. There is so much more that we can do in that area. I do not believe that we are pushing at a closed door. Judges genuinely want people to understand their judgements. The Lady Chief Justice is very keen to increase transparency and understanding of sentencing.

Ms Bunting: It is also important to recognise that, at the time of sentencing, when a victim is in the court, that is a very highly traumatising time for them. They may not take in everything that is said at the time. They may be selective in what they are hearing and observing. Therefore, the ability to reflect and look back on that and to read the sentencing remarks over a cup of tea and a biscuit — I do not mean to trivialise that when I say it — in a less heightened state is really important to them. As I said at the start and will continue to say, those remarks need to be in plain English so that the victim can understand them and is not left more traumatised by not understanding the necessity of that.

A few years ago, at our conference, I was struck by a speech by Sally Challen's son. He spoke about how it was part of the healing process for him to be able to read the sentencing remarks, but also about how difficult and traumatic it had been to get those into his inbox so that he could read them. He felt that he had to do a lot of work to get that. Again, that speaks to the fact that many victims feel that they have to do a lot of work in the criminal justice system to have their voices heard and their needs met. That is a very basic need. You want to know that. You want to know what has been said. You do not want to be reliant on asking, "Was that said at the time? I was just so annoyed about what was being talked about, and I really want to see that written down".

We are living in a technological age, so there have to be ways in which we can better use the technology. Whether that is by sending someone a digital file or an audio file that they can play, or whether AI can be used, although I have concerns about how that translates, there has to be a way to get that across.

Ms Ferguson: I want to ask about one other area, which is the provision to protect public workers. What are your general thoughts on the current definition in the Bill?

Ms Hanna: I welcome the recognition that, when someone is attacked in the course of doing their job, the aggravator will potentially be considered when sentencing. We should all be able to carry out our roles. Some of us have difficult jobs — some are a lot more difficult than that of the commissioner designate, I would say — and are at the front line, so to speak. My concern is that the Bill, as written, would repeal the legislation that is in place for emergency workers. There is a distinction there. I relate it to what I said earlier about the assessment that is made when we talk about a hierarchy of victims: for me, it is more about an assessment of harm and a recognition of the broader harm that is caused when someone assaults an emergency worker in the course of their duties. If a firefighter, a police officer or an ambulance worker is assaulted while they are on duty, not only might they not work the rest of their shift or show up for work the next day; they might be taken out of service, which could have an impact on the people whose lives they would have helped or, sometimes, saved in that time. A distinction should be made. I am supportive of the provision for public workers, but we need an added distinction for emergency workers.

Ms Bunting: Yes. We support the inclusion of the new offence. With the public, all too often we are faced with victims who, for example, have been working in a shop and have been robbed at knifepoint. That is a traumatic experience for that person, and they may carry that for a long time. However, we have the same reservations about the provision nullifying the effect of legislation for emergency service workers. It is not about creating a hierarchy of victims, but, if a nurse who is on duty has been assaulted and can no longer provide services to the public, there is a double effect. The public is affected. How that could be incorporated in the Bill requires further consideration, because there is a wider impact on the public. However, we completely support the Bill's intention.

Mr Bradley: Thank you for your presentation. Most of my queries have been answered, but I want to ask about serious crime where there has been a loss of life. A judge gives some solace to the bereaved family by handing down a minimum tariff, but the prisoner can be out, unaccompanied, among the general public before the tariff has expired. Would you like to see anything in the Bill that states that a tariff is a tariff? I do not mind there being rehabilitation after a tariff has been served, but I have concerns that a minimum tariff can expire sooner than the tariff date if a prisoner is allowed out into the community. Do you share those concerns?

Ms Hanna: If I understand you correctly, Maurice, you are referring to life sentences —

Mr Bradley: Yes.

Ms Hanna: — and the pre-release-testing phase. I have concerns, which have been highlighted to me by families, about how the pre-release-testing phase works prior to the tariff expiry date. I am conscious that I am using language that the general public — if anybody is listening in — may not understand, but, of course, when someone gets a mandatory life sentence for murder, the judge will state the minimum tariff that should be spent in custody before a parole commissioner considers whether that prisoner is safe to be released on licence into the community.

Our current process is that we begin testing people three years prior to the minimum tariff ending to help inform that decision. All the victims and families to whom I have spoken about that process very much support the notion of testing before release on licence.

That principle is not contested. I fully support them, however, in raising concern about the level and extent of unaccompanied testing prior to a parole commissioner's determination of someone's suitability for release on licence into the community. I will get quite technical: it is called, I think, phase 3. Effectively, it means that, for up to six to nine months prior to an offender's tariff expiry date, they could live unaccompanied in our community in approved accommodation. That is unacceptable. I do not think that that is necessarily understood by the public. It certainly is not understood by victims and families until, unfortunately, they find themselves in the situation where it is communicated to them. I do not think that it is an ethical thing for us to do. I genuinely appreciate the need to test, but I do not think that that level of unaccompanied testing prior to the expiry of a minimum tariff period that was set by law truly reflects what the judge said when giving the sentence and assessing what the tariff expiry date should be. If that is not the intention of the legislator, there is an opportunity for us to ensure that such a level of testing is prohibited, should the Assembly agree with that.

Mr Bradley: It is a contradiction. What could we write into the Bill to address that contradiction?

Ms Hanna: I am not a draftsperson. I ask that the Bill make it unlawful for the Prison Service to use that extent of unaccompanied testing prior to the tariff expiry date. I appreciate that we want to ensure that parole commissioners can make as informed a decision as possible when someone is in front of them. Nobody disputes that. However, I genuinely do not think that it was totally understood by the public or by the legislators; it has happened in practice.

I welcome the fact that the Minister commissioned an independent review of the pre-release testing process, which Janice has fed into, and I am hopeful that the recommendations from it will be implemented. That might help to give the Committee a direction of travel when it comes to what the Department will do on the back of those recommendations and how that might, if need be, be appropriately echoed, or "belt and braced", in the legislation.

Mr Bradley: Most legislation carries a cost or needs an increased workforce. We have talked about the increased use of suspended sentences and the community requirements, but how confident are you that the current Probation Board is sufficiently manned and resourced to deal with extra community requirements from suspended sentences?

Ms Hanna: Of course, I do not represent the Probation Board and would bow to its assessment of that. From my perspective, I am not confident, which is why we need to ensure that the appropriate resources are put in place. If the chief executive of the Probation Board believes that they are there, I will go with that, but we need to ensure that the resources are there. It is really important that we consider resources in that regard. For me, using suspended sentences rather than custodial sentences, in effect, just moves the costs to a different part of the system. It will inevitably cost us, regardless of the type of sentence. That is the cost to society of implementing our justice system, but we need to make sure that we spend money where it is most appropriate to do so. It is for a judge to determine in each case where best to do that.

I will make another point on costs and resources. When I first started to work in this area, a lot of effort was put into doing as much as we could just to get a victim to court. Recently, we have paid much more attention, thankfully, to what happens when victims are there. To try to improve that, we have remote evidence centres, special measures and support services, which, no doubt, want more resources. Where we are lacking — we have not fully addressed this yet, and the Bill will only touch the surface — is in the support that is needed for victims and the recognition of their needs post sentence. The criminal justice system might tick a box and say, "Job done. Successful outcome: conviction", but a sentence is endured by not just the offender but families. In cases involving the most serious offences with the longest sentences, the families affected continue to be forgotten about. Whilst we have made some strides, it is nowhere near the level that it needs to be at to appropriately take into account their needs. Through the Bill, we have opportunities to improve their understanding of sentences and access to sentencing remarks and to remove things such as good character evidence in certain cases at sentencing, and we should strive to take those opportunities in this mandate. There is much more work that needs to be done in the following mandate, but where we can make the Bill as victim-focused as possible to help to start address some of the challenges that families and victims face after the sentencing process, we should do so.

Ms Bunting: I will add to that. Victim Support has run two services post sentencing that were time-bound and resource-bound. Our after-court support service, which was for victims after the court journey had finished, provided some psychological support to help them. What people need to understand is that, in the most serious cases in particular — sexual violence, murder and manslaughter — victims hold themselves until they get through the court process. In many instances, it is only after the court process that the victim starts to breathe, and that is when the pain starts to kick in really harshly. However, there is not necessarily anything for the victim at that stage. Our after-court support was a testing model, and what we discovered through the testing model was that that support was vital and absolutely needed, because victims experience the crime long after the offender gets out of prison.

We ran a second model — again, it was time-bound and resource-bound — that kicked in at any stage where a victim had stepped off the criminal justice journey. That may have been because their case had been delayed so long that they could not face it, but they still had all the pain. It clearly proved that there is a need for support for victims after the process has finished. We have the evidence base to underpin that.

We have had two very good independent evaluations, both of which point to the necessity for that. That goes to the point that I made earlier: where there is, say, community sentencing and rehabilitative work that will assist an offender — we never want to see that stopped — there also needs to be balance and proportionality for victims. When they come out of that process and the door is closed, they will go straight to health services. We have had letters from doctors and health professionals who said, "Because you were able to do the work upstream when the victim exited the criminal justice journey, there have been savings downstream, because they did not come to us as much". The resource issue has to cut both ways.

I will add to what Geraldine said in response to your comment about the Probation Board. Again, this goes back to an earlier point that I made. When we do something like community sentencing, which has community requirements, victims will be let down if the resources are not there to make sure that that plays out.

Mr Bradley: I could not agree with you more. A victim is a victim from the point of the crime until they get the case to court. They are still a victim thereafter, and, depending on the nature of the crime, they are probably a victim for the rest of their life.

Ms Bunting: Many will say that it is a life sentence for them and that it will have created a new normal for how they live their life compared with the way that they lived their life before the crime happened.

Ms Hanna: That is why the work that we are looking at is so important. I know that the Department and the Minister have looked at work around the process for parole, but there is so much more that we need to do to ensure that the needs and rights of victims are part of that process.

Ms Bunting: We are happy to make available to the Committee any of the post-court evaluations that we have done.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That would be good.

Mr Bradley: That would be valuable. Thank you very much.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your evidence. I will focus on one aspect, which relates to the worst excesses that we saw on our streets, last year in particular, around race violence. For many of us who know people who have come to live in this country, to make their lives here, get jobs and raise families, we felt palpable fear amongst them. They are good people who are just doing a day's work, some of whom were burnt out of their homes, had their vehicles burnt and were abused on the streets on their way into work or sometimes on their way to a hospital. In a lot of cases, that does not happen in isolation, but there are external factors at work. There are those, principally online, who incite and orchestrate that. Often, the ones who orchestrate are not the ones who do the dirty work, but they send pawns out to do it for them. Sometimes those people end up in court, having done some seriously abusive thing against an innocent person who has just made their home in this country, but that does not happen in the round. In your evidence, I noticed a reference to a measure for strengthening sentencing options. Does the Sentencing Bill adequately address what I will call the "lead up to" factors — the instances of orchestration and incitement that happen principally, but not exclusively, online — to the actual commission of the act of race violence?

Ms Bunting: We have mentioned aggravation by hostility and talked about clause 3 including the word "immediately". The question is whether that limits the very thing that you are talking about. When somebody is being investigated for that, does the inclusion of that word shut down the ability of the police to look at how that incitement happened? We are acutely aware that that happens. Unfortunately, it has been happening for the past three years and is increasing. There therefore needs to be a mechanism to address that in the Bill. As the Chair highlighted, the use of the word "immediately" may be a constraining factor, so we need to look at how that can be better explored. The issue of incitement, targeting and putting people out on the streets needs to be properly addressed in the Bill.

I still think that the hostility aggravator fits under "hostility" in the hate crime aggravator. That goes back to how the police can prove that. What are the tools that they need to make that stick effectively so that those people can be held accountable? All too often, when someone incites someone else to go out on to the street — it may well be a young person who is incited — the person who was incited is criminalised and the orchestrator is not criminalised. There has to be a method by which that can be addressed and those people can be criminalised.

Ms Hanna: The Bill looks at "aggravated by". A lot of the initial base offending is outside the scope of the Bill. Powers relating to some of that, particularly those in the online space, are not devolved to Northern Ireland, so significant work needs to be done there. However, I would like to think that having the right and appropriate tools to deal with the base offence in the Bill, the inclusion of the wording "aggravated by hostility", will help to address some of that issue. That is so difficult, particularly in the online sphere. We know from research undertaken by the Rabble Cooperative following the race riots that a lot of that incitement was carried out by actors who were not in Northern Ireland. It is important that our laws are fit for purpose to address that. Hopefully, the wording "aggravated by hostility" will go some way towards addressing that in the local legislation, which is in our gift. I will keep saying this, however: it will not be a panacea. We need to do much more in this sphere.

Mr McGlone: I have one final question, Chair. Janice, you mentioned under-reporting by those affected or potentially affected by race crime in particular. Have you any evidence base that could be helpful to the Committee? I do not mean immediately, but, if you have something, it could be helpful to us.

Ms Bunting: That has certainly been talked about among our hate crime partners. I would like to take that question back to them and see whether they can supply me with that particular information. I can say, however, that it is an open secret that hate crime is under-reported.

Therefore, anything in the Bill that helps to encourage that reporting is really important.

Mr McGlone: It would be very helpful if you could turn up something for us, please.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will cover a couple of areas that have not been exhausted, if you do not mind. We are stuck for time, so I would appreciate concise answers, if that is OK, and I will try to be as quick and understandable as possible.

Clause 1(4)(b) refers to:

Is it just that paragraph that disturbs you, or does the whole subsection disturb you? Geraldine, you mentioned Kevin Brown, who says that omitting any express reference to harm or culpability departs from convention and form. Is it the whole of subsection (4) or just paragraph (b)?

Ms Hanna: Initially, the character piece jarred with me, but, having read Kevin's piece in the 'Irish Legal News', I support his endorsement of the reference to harm and culpability. That is my understanding of how sentencing law is currently addressed.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Clause 14 sets out that schedule 2 makes provision for any breaches and amendments to suspended sentence orders. Schedule 2 is massive. I do not know whether you have had time to study or scrutinise it, and I do not expect an answer off the top of your head. Do you see anywhere in schedule 2 that makes provision for a custodial sentence if you breach a suspended sentence order?

Ms Hanna: I confess that I have not read it in detail, so I do not know.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I cannot see it, and maybe I am missing it.

Ms Hanna: What I will say is that, if you cannot see it, it is not clear. Maybe there is something that we need to address there.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Maybe I have just missed it in a tired hour of looking at it. Would both of you go back to see whether there is any such provision in schedule 2?

Ms Hanna: I will.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You rightly mentioned the perspective of victims of a slap on the wrist. I think that, in a suspended sentence order, there has to be the ultimate sanction that there could be a custodial sentence if there are multiple breaches. It is just to see whether it is covered there. It might not be.

Ms Hanna: I would be surprised if it is not addressed in some way. There may be a need to make it clearer.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, schedule 2 goes on for about three or four pages, and I cannot see it. Maybe I have missed it. I just wanted to know whether you had picked it up.

Clause 18 introduces a duty to give reasons when determining a tariff. You say that you want victims and witnesses to be included in the provision in that clause so that the court must explain to victims — in ordinary language and in open court, as it has to do for an offender under the provision — the reasons when determining a tariff for a life sentence. When such an explanation is made in open court, would that not cover victims and witnesses, or is that to be added to expressly give victims and witnesses their place?

Ms Hanna: That was highlighted to specifically point out that explaining it to the offender does not give victims and witnesses their place. Although the sentence will not be served by the victim, a victim will very often say that they are serving it. It is important that that is recognised in the Bill so that there is no avoidance of doubt. It goes back to the point that I made earlier. We sometimes think that, when we get to the sentencing, it is a slam dunk, but, for victims, it is not. Anything that we can do in law to reinforce the value and importance that we place on their needs should be, if it is uncontroversial, included.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you. Janice, you suggest, regarding Part 4, which deals with unduly lenient sentences, that victims should be offered meetings with prosecutors after sentencing. How do you envisage that taking place logistically through the legislation?

Ms Bunting: I think that that can be written into the legislation. I appreciate that there may be a resource aspect to that. It goes in some part to your previous question, in that victims and offenders are part of the same whole, but that whole — whatever way you want to think about it — seems to be more skewed towards the offender. It is for victims to have equity, fairness and transparency through the opportunity to be able to meet the prosecutor, if that is what they want to do. That is the point.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It would offer an option.

Ms Bunting: Yes. Two things could be linked, such as the sentencing remarks and the trial. Oftentimes, particularly in sexual violence cases, where we use a sexual offences legal adviser (SOLA), for example, victims could meet with prosecutors after cases. There is a way in which that could happen, but it goes back to the point that the Bill is considering the offender — rightly so, because it is sentencing — but the victim is a part of that same whole.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you. That is everything that I have for you. Thank you very much for an informative session. We have gone over time, but we were here anyway. There has been good member retention even though we are competing with the plenary sitting. Thank you very much for your time.

Ms Bunting: Thank you.