Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I inform members that the witnesses providing evidence on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill today are Joanne Dorrian, John Dorrian, Michelle Dorrian, Sinéad Corrigan and Mary Murray. You are all very welcome to the Committee. We really appreciate your attendance. We know that this will not be easy. We recognise that you have campaigned graciously and very actively on behalf of your loved ones. As Chairperson of the Committee, I want to say that our hearts and our thoughts and prayers are with you always in your campaign. We hope that some of your ambitions for your loved ones in regard to the legal parameters will be realised through the Bill. Without further ado, I will hand over to you. Is someone going to present. Joanne, is it you? OK. Thank you.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: First, on behalf of the Dorrian family and the Murray family, I would like to thank you for inviting us to give oral evidence today. We have campaigned for a long time for Charlotte's law, and it is a really positive step to be here today to give this level of scrutiny to the Bill so that it can go forward. Thank you, all.

We would like to draw your attention to a few points in the Bill and ask that you consider our request for parts of it be strengthened. As you will be well aware, there has been one conviction for a no-body murder in the history of Northern Ireland. Any evidence that we give today will lean on that, as well as the lived experience of the Murray family in getting a conviction for Charlotte's murder and disappearance.

The first point that we want to raise is about the provision:

We would like the Committee to consider strengthening that position. Privately with Justice Department officials, we agreed that we are content with that. Being truthful today, I will say that we are, indeed, content with it being not less than 30%. That is a good starting point for a judge, because we are still offering judges a level of discretion to implement a custodial period above 30%. Equally, however, it would be remiss of us as families not to ask for something stronger than that.

We obviously want to give perpetrators the best incentive. Given that, at the formula stage, we are reducing the period by up to 50% on their sentence, we want the original figure to be as large as possible. That will also work as a deterrent, because someone who has committed a murder and who is deciding whether to give up or hide a body will know from case law that a significant number of years will be added to their sentence. We therefore ask you to consider strengthening that by increasing the additional custodial period — the additional tariff — to even 40%, which would then be reduced using the formula.

Will I move on to the next point?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, sure. We will ask questions at the end. Thank you.

Ms Dorrian: Thank you, Paul.

The next point is about the proposed reduction of up to 50% in clause 29(3). Whilst we realise that we could never offer a 100% reduction to a perpetrator because there would be no incentive for them to disclose earlier in their journey with the justice system, it would be remiss of us not to ask for that 50% to be increased. If we started the reduction at something like 70%, that would make it worthwhile for the perpetrator to disclose. The only example that we have is that of John Miller. John Miller denies to this day that he carried out Charlotte's murder. We hope to get to a position in Charlotte's case where he not only admits that he murdered her but is willing to tell the family where she is. Increasing it to something like 70% would give a bigger reduction in sentence, which would incentivise disclosure at the earliest point. Such a change would put us in the strongest position to do that.

It is not easy for any of us to sit here today and say that we want to reduce the sentence of any murderer. In an ideal world, we would never want that. However, we are in really niche circumstances, and every one of us sitting here today — I am sure that other families who are without a conviction would tell you this — would do anything to get our loved ones back. We would not forgo justice, but we are trying to use the justice system to get what we need, and what we need is the return of the bodies of our loved ones. We therefore ask you to consider the possibility of the reduction beginning at 70%, but anything above 50% would be very agreeable to us.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you.

Ms Dorrian: I will move on to the bespoke arrangement in the Bill: the provision for anybody who has been sentenced before the commencement of the legislation. As I said, at this time, that applies only to John Miller. I do not envisage there being any other cases before the Bill, hopefully, becomes law next year. He received a sentence of 16 years, with aggravating and, unfortunately, mitigating factors. In the sentencing remarks, the judge said that the non-disclosure was the most serious aggravating factor, but, even with that, John Miller still received only 16 years.

The provision that will incentivise John Miller is the proposal to take 25% off his sentence — his full tariff — in order to be able to start the sliding scale formula. I hope that that makes sense. He received 16 years, which means that he will get four years off the sentence, which is equivalent to 25%. He will have served roughly seven years of his sentence, and, if we were to apply the sliding scale formula as it sits at the moment, the justice system would be able to offer him approximately one year off his sentence. We are asking him not only to admit that he murdered Charlotte, which he has never done, but to disclose where she is, and that is to get just one year off his sentence. Does that feel strong enough to us? It does not.

I know that retrospective law is tricky. As this is such a bespoke arrangement, however, applying to only one case, we ask that the clock be started at his 50% or 70% — whatever is agreed to — when it goes into law, as if he had just been sentenced. The maximum he will ever get is two years off his sentence, because that 25% means that it is a four-year aggravator. We ask, therefore, that the clock be started at 50% or 70% or whatever is agreed to. I do not think that one year, applying that sliding scale, is enough. I hope that it is enough for him to disclose where Charlotte's remains are, but we need to ask for it to be stronger, while we have the opportunity to do so.

My final point is just a notice to the Committee. We do not fully understand this aspect of the Bill, and we would like to draw your attention to it. Clause 24(2) states:

I do not know whether that is something that has to be written into every piece of legislation — I am not over that detail — but I cannot think of an example where that would apply, given that clause 24(1) already determines that it applies where the person:

Clause 24(1) further determines that it applies where the court does not know the location of the victim's remains and the court believes that the perpetrator:

I cannot think of a scenario in which that discretion at clause 24(2) would apply. It makes me uncomfortable that that discretion is in the Bill, because it essentially gives the judiciary the discretion not to apply Charlotte's law at all. I do not understand why it is in there. There may be a very good reason, but I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to that, so that it receives the scrutiny that it deserves.

Speaking on behalf of our families, we realise that Charlotte's law will not change the lives of millions of people and possibly not even of thousands of people, but it has the potential to change the lives of families such as ours who have lived with this ambiguity, or "ambiguous loss" as it is called, which is one of the most stressful types of trauma that anyone can endure in their lifetime. It simply asks the perpetrator for the truth and to return our loved ones' bodies to us so that we can heal. We would like Committee members to keep that at the forefront of their minds when giving the Bill the scrutiny that it needs. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Joanne. Thank you very much for being concise and targeted in your presentation on the Bill; we do not always get that from witnesses. You are very learned and have walked us through Part 5 of the Bill, and I appreciate that.

I will open the meeting to Committee members to ask questions. Members, I ask that you be concise, as we are struggling for time, as always. I also ask the witnesses to be concise in the answers that they give. Before that, I will say one thing: departmental officials and other people who know the law inside out come to the Committee to give evidence. We do not expect you to know the law inside out, so, if we ask you about anything that you do not have an opinion on, you can say so; there is no issue with that. If you do not know the answer to something, that is fine — it is our job to find out that answer from someone else — so please be at ease about that.

Ms Egan: Thank you, all, for coming in. Your families have been incredible and amazing in campaigning for this, but you should not have had to be: you should still have your sister and your daughter. Thank you for your work. I know how hard you have campaigned, and your suggestions are brilliant. I know that you have been working with the Department of Justice on the proposal, which is why it is in the Bill. I know that it was inspired by Helen's law in England, but this is quite a bit stronger. As Paul said, it is OK if you do not know the answer to a question, as it is our job as a Committee to find out. Joanne, you mentioned a figure of 30%. Did you come up with that figure along with Department of Justice officials? Did you take inspiration from other jurisdictions that operate such a law? How was that figure landed on? It is a tough balance, as you said.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: When we, very keenly, started the campaign, we hoped for a law that said, "No body, no parole. If you don't say where the remains of your victims are, you don't get out of jail". We hoped that it would be as simple as that; of course, it was not as simple as that when it went out for scrutiny and human rights were taken into account. We sat down with the officials and talked about making it as close to that as would be acceptable to the judiciary. This will be the first time that a judge has to determine and publicly state how much of a tariff has been apportioned for non-disclosure, so it is a novel thing in Northern Ireland. We will always ask for more, which is why we are here today asking for more, but it felt as though 30% could create the incentive that we need for the perpetrator to disclose where their victim's body is.

Ms Egan: OK. Thank you. It is a really interesting question and one that I was thinking about a lot during your presentation: how can we bring in a proper incentive to ensure that you see your loved ones and get their bodies back while ensuring that there is justice? People need to be brought to justice for what they have done and for the pain and trauma that they have put you and your families through. That was my only question. Thank you, all, for coming in and presenting to us today. I know that it is not easy.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Thank you. May I make one other point on that, Connie?

Ms Egan: Absolutely. Please do.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: As John Miller's sentence is 16 years, the additional period would be four years, so the maximum reduction that he could have got would be two years. We welcome the increase in the starting points. We think that that is really important because it gives a larger figure to deal with when it comes to reductions. We thought hypothetically about Lisa's case when we talked about that, because, obviously, it is our hope that we will get someone to court for Lisa's murder and that this will apply. If Lisa's murderer were to receive a 20-year tariff, with the 30% figure, we would be looking at only an additional six years, which means that the maximum reduction that we could ever offer the perpetrator would three years. It is good to put it in those real terms. Even if Lisa's murderer got a really strong sentence of 20 years, as opposed to the 16 that Miller got, we would still be able to give only an extra six years and to offer a reduction of only three, and that would be at the beginning of the sentence, because the sliding scale goes down dramatically. It is important that it be a sliding scale, because we need the earliest possible disclosure, but, even with a strong tariff that includes an additional six years, we could offer only a three-year reduction to the perpetrator as an incentive to reveal the information. That is why we are asking for more than 30%.

Ms Egan: That is a really good example.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Thank you.

Ms Egan: Thank you so much.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, all, for your attendance today and for standing up on this matter and representing other families to try to correct a gap in our law. Our thoughts are very much with you in your ongoing suffering following what has been inflicted on you. You have answered most of the questions that I had, Joanne, and I thank you for being clear. I just want to clarify what you said about John Miller's sentence. You said that, in the sentencing, the judge factored in non-disclosure of the location of the body.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Was an extra tariff for that specified? I want to clarify how you calculated that the 25% figure that you mentioned would mean a one-year rather than a four-year reduction in the overall sentence of 16 years. Was part of it specified? At the moment, there is no sentence to be added on.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: There is no onus on a judge to detail how they have come to the tariff. They will say, "This person has committed murder. We have considered three aggravators and two mitigators, and this is the figure we've come to", and that is the accepted figure. They do not have to detail it any further, as, I am sure, you are aware. In order for Charlotte's law to apply retrospectively, we had to work out how much the judge might have apportioned to the non-disclosure. The sentencing remarks stated that the non-disclosure was the most serious aggravating factor save premeditation, save the fact that she was a vulnerable woman, and save the attempt to defeat the ends of justice. Taking all that into account, the remarks were so strong that, because we are legislating for 30% in such cases, we felt that 25% should be applicable retrospectively for him.

Mr Kingston: Right. Even if the law were to come into effect now, it might not apply retrospectively. Do you think that it could?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: It will apply retrospectively.

Mr Kingston: OK.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: That is specifically written in. The formula will then apply. That is the point that I was making. In October this year, he will have served seven years of his sentence. By next year, when the formula that is written into the legislation will be applied, it will work out that he will be able to get roughly 380 days off his sentence, which is why we are asking for a bespoke measure to be put in place. When the law comes into effect, we want the calculation to start as if he had just been sentenced, in order to maximise the incentive plea.

Mr Kingston: OK. In the clause about the provision of information and determining whether it is genuine information, whether or not it leads to the recovery of a body, or whether somebody is trying to take advantage, is the wording sufficient to prevent an abuse and to cover situations in which a person genuinely tries to give information but it does not lead to the recovery of a body? Is the balance right in that clause?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Yes, it is. It is a difficult thing to legislate for. We have talked about so many scenarios where someone has been murdered and their body disappeared. We have talked out all those scenarios. For example, a person may no longer have the capacity to give the information. A person may tell you where the body is, but the body is no longer recoverable. We have talked about all those really niche circumstances in order to get the balance right. The wording is as strong as it can be. The information is given under oath to an official from the Department. The person will have to give context around the disclosure. For example, we talked about someone saying, "I put the body in the sea". That would not just be taken at face value; they would have to give the Department a load of context around that. How did they get the body to the sea? What vehicle did they use? They would have to give all of that. That would be scrutinised in order to make sure. Unfortunately, there are scenarios in which a body will not be recoverable, or someone will not have capacity, but the job of the legislation is to get as much as possible from the perpetrator.

We have talked about situations where we were to find out that neither of our family members' bodies was recoverable, but at least we would have that level of truth. The limbo — the not knowing — is the most difficult thing. A lot of people in Northern Ireland live with the murder of their loved ones, but having those truths told to us would help us to heal.

Mr Kingston: Right. May I just clarify the point about when the law can be applied in retrospect? Would it apply if someone was convicted for Lisa's murder before the legislation came into force? If the conviction happened shortly before the legislation received Royal Assent, could it apply?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Yes.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is clause 30 as far as I understand, which is "Application to sentences passed before commencement". It specifies that very scenario, which, as you will recognise, Brian, is not logical thinking with regard to —.

Mr Kingston: No, but we want it to apply as much as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you all for coming today. It is really brave of you. We are dealing with the principles of the Bill. None of us is an expert, and, oftentimes, it is the practicalities that trip me up and take me ages to get my head around. Your explanation was articulate and helped me to understand it a bit, which I had not, to be honest. I sense that you are saying this — about the potential reduction being an incentive — in the full knowledge that it will make life easier for someone who caused unimaginable harm to your families. I sense your strength of feeling about having a grave to go to and that that is how important this is for you. Is there anything else that we could look at or add to the Bill in order to incentivise? Does it go far enough to incentivise or force people to come forward with that information?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Apart from where we have asked the legislation to be strengthened, the only other thing that I would suggest is a collaborative approach with the PSNI. The PSNI is the body that will be in contact with a perpetrator from arrest, so it is about making the PSNI aware of how significant this is and what it could mean for the suspect. The PSNI needs to remind the perpetrator that that provision is available. Obviously, it would be up to a perpetrator's counsel to do that as well. When it comes to any disclosure — although, as Brian said, that may not lead to recovery or the person may not have the capacity — the PSNI knows the ins and outs of every murder investigation that it is working on, so the PSNI is best placed to be involved at that stage. It could be written into the Bill that the PSNI will be the statutory body tasked with doing that.

Ms Sheerin: In respect of that information.

Ms Dorrian: Yes.

Ms Sheerin: Is there enough to guard against someone hedging their bets, staying silent at trial stage and then, when they have been convicted, providing the information as a means of shortening their time in jail? Is that a gap in the Bill?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: A perpetrator hedging their bets will probably always happen. If someone is not going to admit to a murder, they are not going to admit to a murder. It will be a good thing if a perpetrator is over the detail of Charlotte's law or their counsel advises them, "This will not be aggravated for in your tariff if you give up the body now. It will not be an additional part to your sentence — it won't factor into it". The incentive for them is that they would never be aggravated for that and get additional time on their tariff for it. Therefore, yes, I think that it is as strong as it can be.

Ms Sheerin: Yes, that makes sense. Thank you.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I want to take you through Part 5, if you do not mind. You are very good at this, so I will take this opportunity to go through it. From your discussions with officials in your campaigning, why do you think that they have settled for 30% in clause 24? Were you given any rationale for that?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: That is what the judiciary was willing to accept.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is what the judiciary was willing to accept.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Yes. Whilst we all appreciate that there has to be discretion for the judiciary, it is a difficult position for us as families. We are saying that we need strong legislation, but that is the position that we are in.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Right, OK. Is that also the case for clause 29, "Reduction to sentence", which states that a reduction:

You would be prepared to go to 70%. Was it the judiciary that set it at 50%?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Not that I am aware of. When we talked about it with officials, we all realised that a 100% reduction could not be offered, because that would have been counter-intuitive. I think that a 50% reduction worked out easier to calculate.

In our discussions, we have said that a formula is a formula for a reason. It does not matter if it comes down to days, weeks and hours that they have spent in custody. The formula is there in order to work out the reduction. If there were a higher starting point, that would give us a greater chance of having our loved ones returned.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Are you content with the formula and steps in clause 24, which is titled "Determining the length of the custodial period"?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Are there any omissions that need to be added to the clause, or are you happy with the framework for how the period is determined?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Yes, we are totally happy with it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Would you go so far as to say that you do not want it to be tampered with in any way? Is that fair to say?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: The formula would be the only part. The first part of the formula is to divide by two, which gives 50%. That would look a bit different if we were to have a starting point of 70% for the reduction.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Clause 30 is titled "Application to sentences passed before commencement". You rightly said that it would apply to only one person. Should a completely different formula be used in that instance? Would that be feasible?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: It absolutely would. There is a world in which we could offer him the full four years off. He will be seven years into his sentence next month. If we talk hypothetically about the legislation coming into force next year, he will be eight years into his sentence, which is halfway through it. The maximum that we can give him is four years off.

I cannot speak for the Murray family, but there is a world in which you could legislate for him getting the full four years off. You could go further than that and offer him five or six years off his sentence. It really comes down to what you feel is acceptable and what the Assembly would then accept.

As is it at the moment, we are in danger of introducing a Charlotte's law that does not find Charlotte. That is what I really worry about. We are doing this in the hope of getting to a position in which it applies to Lisa, but we are not there yet. The only case to which it can make a difference is Charlotte's, which is why it is so important that her case be at the forefront of what we write into law, especially for the retrospective provisions.

Mr John Dorrian: I would like to say something on that. If he says that he knows where the body is, does that mean that he is guilty in the eyes of the law?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you mean if he were to admit it?

Mr John Dorrian: Would the legislation apply if he were a guilty man?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): He would most definitely fall under the legislation. John. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that everyone would then know. If he were to make a declaration of guilt, everyone would know. No matter what happened to the individual, by way of a custodial sentence or otherwise, the world would know. That is something too.

Mr John Dorrian: Under Helen's law, the guy got out. He lived in the same community, and the victim's mother could have seen him. I do not know whether she did, but I thought that that was terrible. It was very cruel. That could happen with that 16-year sentence as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you think that more conditions should be placed on the perpetrator when they get out than would be the case if they were released on licence?

Mr John Dorrian: I think so. Northern Ireland is a small community.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you have any thoughts on those conditions?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: It a bit like Helen's law. I do not think that it fell under Helen's law, but Marie tried to introduce a condition that her daughter's killer could not be within a certain radius of where she lived so that she could try to live her life comfortably without looking over her shoulder or fearing that she might walk into a shop and bump into him. We would welcome anything like that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Would that be a real worry for you? I know that it is a long way down the line.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: It is, but I will tell you, Paul, that, in the past three months, I have been in the vicinity of Lisa's suspect on three occasions, and that has been very difficult for me. He is not aware of that, but I am aware of seeing him in my locality three times in the past three months.

Mr John Dorrian: He was written off as a suspect by the police at a very early stage in our case, and we were not at all satisfied with that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We need to be careful, because —

Mr John Dorrian: I understand.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): — there is a live investigation.

Mr John Dorrian: I am speaking as a layman who does not know the intricacies of it all.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I understand. You are doing very well, John. You are all doing very well.

I have a question about clause 28, which is titled "Relevant disclosure". I want to focus on clause 28(1)(d). I will read out clause 28(1) in its entirety, because you probably do not have it in front of you. It states:

What does paragraph (d) mean to you? How important is that?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: We will always hope that the information will lead to a recovery, but, as we talked about with Brian, we are aware of scenarios in which a body at sea may not be recoverable and of other circumstances that you can only imagine. It is equally important to get the information, but that information has to be robustly tested. Some murderers and perpetrators are very manipulative and cold and calculated, so we would worry that they would be able to look at the clause and say, "I'll come up with a scenario that I can make them believe that doesn't lead to the recovery, and I'll still get time off". We have to be careful about that. It is difficult to come up with a foolproof solution, because, at the end of the day, it will always be their account even where there is no recovery, but we have to make sure that there are measures in place for that account to be robustly tested, which is why the PSNI is best placed to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If I understand you correctly, there might be information given that would be critical to you that would help you have some sort of knowledge, if not understanding, of when, how and what happened, which would bring you to a point at which you would rest a bit easier without having Lisa's remains returned.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Yes. The truth is the truth, no matter how hard it is. We have always said that. If the truth is that Lisa is no longer recoverable, and if the truth is that Charlotte is no longer recoverable, at least we will know.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. That would be really important. Do you want to raise anything about Part 5 of the Bill that you have not already raised? It is titled "Failure to disclose information about victim's remains".

You have been very specific, and I thank you for that, but is there anything else that you wish to discuss, even something arising from the questions that we have asked?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: There is nothing else, thanks.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Brian, you want in again. Sorry, I did not see you indicate.

Mr Kingston: I want to clarify something in clause 24. Someone could be convicted of the murder, but the court might not believe that they had information about where or how the victim's remains were disposed. The person could therefore be convicted of the murder, or of playing a part in it, but not of concealing or knowing what happened to the body. There is a certain fairness to that, but I wonder how you feel about it.

Mr John Dorrian: If somebody were to help them without their knowledge? Is that what you mean?

Mr Kingston: The criteria in clause 24(1) are:

and in order to get the extra tariff —

They could therefore be convicted for playing a part in the murder but say, "I was not involved in the concealment or disposal of the body", which would be hard for the victims.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: It is. That is a very real scenario. Look at murder cases in which there has been more than one perpetrator. In Lisa's case, it is a possibility that someone was involved in her murder but did not take part in the disposal of her body. It is right and proper that that exists in the Bill, because if they do not have the knowledge, they do not have the knowledge, and there are other aggravating factors that will come into play in their sentencing anyway. Legally, however, it is right that it is written into the Bill.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Are there any other Parts of the Bill about which you want to say anything? You have talked about the starting points for the tariffs. Am I right in thinking that you are saying that you would support tougher sentencing or longer sentences so that the percentages in Part 5 are made stronger or longer?

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Of course. It is really good to see — I know that other people have discussed this with you — that the categories for the most serious offences are now a lot broader than they previously were. From looking at the hypothetical scenarios around no-body murders in Northern Ireland, I believe a lot of them will naturally fall into the most serious category to start with, which is really encouraging.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. Thank you very much.

Sinéad, I am mindful that Joanne has spoken for you all, but do you want to add anything at this point, or were you happy enough with Joanne's presentation?

Ms Sinéad Corrigan: No, we were happy with Joanne's presentation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you all very much for your attendance. It has been —

Mr John Dorrian: I have one wee question. Why are the sentences in Northern Ireland so lenient compared with those on the mainland?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): John, that is a very good question. We will meet the Department at the end of our evidence gathering on the Bill. It is a question that we, as politicians, have always asked. The judiciary is independent, and it sets sentences and tariffs. As politicians, we cannot stray into that territory too much, but we can certainly challenge the decisions.

Mr John Dorrian: There is a current case of a guy who was found up in Donegal. There seems to be a gap between justice and the judge.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Part 4 of the Bill deals with unduly lenient sentencing and the mechanisms through which it can be challenged. There is work being done on the Bill to address the things that you have talked about, so watch this space to see what we can come up with to ease your angst. We understand your frustration. Many of us feel it too. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your time.

Ms Joanne Dorrian: Thank you.

Mr John Dorrian: Thank you.