Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Pauline Duddy, who is a victim and a campaigner for Jasmin's law, is attending today to provide evidence. Pauline is accompanied by Leeann McLaughlin and Tracy Poole.

You are all very welcome to the meeting. Pauline, I invite you to make an opening statement.

Ms Pauline Duddy: Chair and members of the Justice Committee, I begin by asking you to remember one name: Jasmin. She is not a statistic, a case number or an entry on a spreadsheet: she is Jasmin. My daughter was 21 years old, and she is dead. I am here before you today because I believe that the law has a responsibility to learn from what happened to her. I am not here to ask you to listen to another speech about drugs: you have heard those speeches. Rather, I am asking you to listen to a mother whose daughter is no longer here because drugs entered her life. I am asking you to decide whether the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill will be another missed opportunity or whether you are prepared to put meaningful protections into law. Jasmin's law belongs in the Bill: not some day, not after another review and not after another consultation, but now. The Assembly has already heard the call for Jasmin's law to be included in the Bill. The Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) has recorded that the issue of including Jasmin's law in the legislation has been raised with the Justice Committee. Today, I ask the Committee this: what more evidence do you need?

Northern Ireland recorded 251 drug-related deaths in 2024, meaning that 251 families were affected, 251 lives were lost and 251 people's stories ended in death, with 219 of those deaths having met the official definition of "drug misuse". Those are not just numbers. Every single one represents somebody's child, sister, brother, parent or friend. Somewhere, there is a family standing beside a grave asking whether somebody could have done more. I know what asking that question feels like, because I asked it myself.

The people who supply illegal drugs know exactly what they are doing. Where a person is vulnerable, that vulnerability can become part of the business mode. That is what I want the law to recognise. There must be a fundamental difference recognised between supplying drugs and exploiting somebody through their vulnerability to be supplied with drugs. There must be a fundamental difference recognised when the person who is being supplied with drugs is a child. There must be consequences that reflect that additional harm. That is why I am asking for Jasmin's law to be introduced: to establish and enforce aggravating factors for supplying illegal drugs to vulnerable people and minors. Vulnerability should not be invisible in court. A child's age should not be invisible in court. Exploitation should not be invisible in court. The devastating consequences of drug supply should not be invisible in court.

The Bill already understands the principle of aggravation. It already proposes that, where vulnerability is proved, the court should treat it as increasing the seriousness of the offence and should explain how the aggravation affects the sentence. I am asking this very simple question: why should that principle stop at the door of drug supply? Why should we not make absolutely certain that the law recognises the particular dangers of supplying illegal drugs to vulnerable people and children? Why should a dealer, who deliberately supplies someone who is vulnerable, not have their exploitation of that vulnerability placed squarely before the court? Why should a dealer who supplies a child not face a sentencing framework that clearly recognises the additional harm caused? If we know that vulnerability makes a person more susceptible to exploitation, the law should recognise that. If we know that children are particularly vulnerable to harm from illegal drugs, the law should recognise that. If we know that drugs are continuing to destroy lives across Northern Ireland, the law must respond accordingly.

I also want to say something about sentences. For families such as mine, sentencing is not an academic discussion. When someone loses a child, the sentence that is handed down to the person responsible becomes part of the family's understanding of what society thinks that that life was worth. I am not asking for punishment for punishment's sake. Rather, I am asking for a proportionate recognition of harm, for accountability, for protection and for deterrence. I am asking for a sentencing framework that sends an unmistakeable message, which is that if people deliberately exploit vulnerable people through illegal drug supply, the vulnerability of the person whom they exploit matters. If people supply a child, the fact that they are a child matters. If their actions cause devastating harm, that harm matters.

There is another reason that I am asking you to act now. Legislation is not just about what happens today but about what happens tomorrow. Jasmin cannot benefit from the law. She cannot come home, sit at my table or hear me speaking about her today. Another mother may still get to bring her daughter home, however. Another father may still get to watch his son grow up. Another family may still have a Christmas from which nobody is missing. It is about prevention. If Jasmin's death can lead to legislation that protects another vulnerable young person, her life will have helped change something. That requires more than kind words, however. It requires actions.

Members of the Committee, I want you to imagine for one moment that the person who is being supplied is your child. Imagine receiving a phone call to be told that your child has been found dead. Imagine walking into a room, knowing that your daughter will never walk through your front door again. Imagine standing in a cemetery when you should be planning your child's future, and then ask yourself whether you would be satisfied that the law simply said that the vulnerability was unfortunate or whether you would expect the law to recognise that vulnerability. Would you expect the person who had exploited that vulnerability to face consequences that properly reflected that exploitation? I know what my answer would be, and I believe that many parents would give you the same answer.

The drug death figures tell us that this is not a minor problem. The Assembly has heard the argument that those who profit from addiction and misery must face consequences that reflect the harm that has been caused. The debates have specifically referred to my daughter Jasmin and to the campaign for Jasmin's law. Today, I am asking you to move from words to legislation. I am asking you to put Jasmin's law into the Bill, to make the aggravating factors clear and enforceable and to make sure that they are properly presented to the court. I am asking you to make sure that, when they are approved, the aggravators increase the seriousness of the offence and that the court explains their impact on the sentence.

Do not leave families depending on whether vulnerability happens to be recognised in practice. Do not create a provision that looks powerful on paper but becomes meaningless in the courtroom. If you put it in law, make it work. I have already buried my daughter. I should never have had to, but I cannot change that. You can change what happens next. You can decide that the death of a vulnerable young person is not simply another tragic statistic. You can decide that exploiting vulnerability through drug supply is serious enough to be expressly recognised in sentencing. You can decide that children deserve a stronger level of protection. You can decide that the lessons of families such as mine will be reflected in legislation. You can decide that Jasmin's name will be remembered not only because she died but because something changed. Jasmin's name can be remembered because legislators listened and because vulnerability became something that the law could no longer ignore. Her name can be remembered because another family was protected.

I will finish with this: my daughter was Jasmin. She was 21. She had a future. She had a family who loved her. She has a mother who would give anything to have her back. I could not save Jasmin, but perhaps, together, you can help save the next vulnerable young person. Do not wait for another Jasmin. Put Jasmin's law into the Bill, make it meaningful and enforceable and make sure that, when somebody deliberately exploits vulnerability through illegal drug supply, the justice system has the power and the duty to recognise exactly what they have done.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Pauline. First, let me stress that we are very sorry for your loss of Jasmin, as we are for all the young people who have been lost through drug taking, drug abuse and the supply of drugs. We know how serious the issue is, and we thank you for coming to the Committee to give evidence. We really appreciate it.

I have met you elsewhere previously, along with your Foyle representatives. I know what Jasmin's law is, and I know that it is about having an aggravator for supplying drugs to a vulnerable person or a child. Have I summed it up correctly for other members of the Committee? Is that what we are talking about here?

Ms Duddy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You said that if we put it into law, we need to make sure that it works and is enforceable.

Ms Duddy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is probably where our role comes in and, indeed, that of the Department of Justice. What engagement have you had with the Minister of Justice and the Department about Jasmin's law? What have they told you about the Bill and any sentencing review that they are conducting.

Ms Duddy: We first met Naomi Long, the Justice Minister, in May 2024. We met her again in June 2026. We met Alan Weir, head of the sentencing policy unit, in January 2025. We met the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. We met the junior Ministers. The Justice Minister told us in May 2024 that she agreed that it cannot remain a victimless crime and that she would get officials to look into it. She told us the same thing in June this year and said that it will be in the next review. We cannot wait a number of years. In the past decade, there has been a 49% increase in death rates owing to drugs. Behind the statistics are families and real people.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. When you talk about vulnerable people, what do you mean by "vulnerability"? When it comes to supplying drugs to a minor, do you have a specific age in mind?

Ms Duddy: A minor is anybody under the age of 18. A vulnerable person is anybody who has been exploited into becoming addicted or who has mental health problems or learning difficulties.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Clause 36 of the Bill is titled "Aggravation by reason of vulnerability". I do not expect you to know this, Pauline, or to have read it or anything, because it is legalese, but, in clause 36(7), "vulnerable person" means:

Is that roughly what you deem a vulnerable person to be?

Ms Duddy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That clause deals with aggravation by reason of vulnerability. I know that it refers to someone who has been assaulted or attacked because of their vulnerability, but you are saying that it is because of their vulnerability that someone is being supplied with drugs.

Ms Duddy: Yes, because that is what drug dealers look for. They exploit people's vulnerability in order to make a quick sale.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I understand.

Mr Beattie: Pauline, thank you for your passionate and compassionate address. It was very moving. Please accept my condolences on the loss of your beautiful daughter Jasmin. I genuinely cannot imagine what you are going through.

Ms Duddy: Thank you.

Mr Beattie: I will explore one point, Pauline, if I may. My understanding of those who sell illegal drugs is that they will sell to absolutely anybody in order to make money. They are unscrupulous. If we get one of them in court for selling drugs to a 35-year-old man who is not vulnerable under the definition in the Bill, and no aggravator is therefore applied, he will get out and go on to sell again to anybody, including the vulnerable. I agree with you totally, by the way, but surely the aggravator should be not just for the vulnerable but for everybody. What we are therefore really talking about for Jasmin's law is having an aggravator for anybody who is dealing drugs, because if we do not capture them all, they will eventually end up dealing drugs to vulnerable people, including minors. If it were not Jasmin's law for the vulnerable but Jasmin's law for everybody, could you accept that?

Ms Duddy: Yes, because that would make it stronger.

Mr Beattie: That is the only point that I need to make. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Pauline, I do not know whether you know what the sentencing tariff for drug dealing is.

Ms Duddy: I do.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What is it? I do not know off the top of my head.

Ms Duddy: For the supply of class A, class B and class C drugs, the maximum sentence is 14 years to life, but not one court in Northern Ireland is sentencing anywhere near to that.

Mr Beattie: May I come back in, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Chair. Pauline, you are absolutely right. We can set a tariff from 14 years, and we can increase it to 16 years. The courts are not willing to give those sentences, however. Over the past two weeks, I have seen different cases in which the sentence has been absolutely pitiful. Unless we improve the sentencing guidelines and toughen up the whole system, it does not matter whether we set a 14-year sentence. It makes no difference whatsoever.

Ms Duddy: The perpetrator who supplied my daughter got six months in prison and served three. It was horrific to hear that, because I thought, "Is that what my daughter's life was worth?".

Mr Beattie: Was that in the Magistrates' Court?

Ms Duddy: No, it was in the Crown Court.

Mr Beattie: It was in the Crown Court. OK.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Pauline, for coming along today and sharing your story. I have met you on numerous occasions, and I know the real harm and devastation caused to you, the wider family and the community. Jasmin was a 21-year-old beautiful young woman who had her whole life ahead of her.

Thank you for your presentation, which was succinct and outlined exactly what is required. I will follow on from Doug's question about the specific problems with the current sentencing arrangements. Over the past few years, you have been liaising with the Department and the Minister on the issue. From the review that you have done of the current sentencing arrangements involving the supply of drugs where it leads to death and serious harm, what sentences have been given in the North compared with elsewhere?

Ms Duddy: On the mainland, in England and Wales, much tougher sentences are given than are given here. If we are part of the UK, the same sentencing guidelines should apply here as apply over there.

There is something else that I would like to address with the Committee. People who lose a child or anyone else as a result of illegally supplied drugs do not get a liaison officer. Not only do families suffer immense grief and shock but no liaison officer is provided to explain to them what is happening with the investigation, or even whether anything is happening, and what the next steps are. We have not got any help whatsoever from the law.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): From where do you think that liaison officer should come? From the PSNI? From the Public Prosecution Service (PPS)?

Ms Duddy: The PSNI provides liaison officers in the event of a road traffic death or a domestic violence death. All deaths cause the same heartache, the same shock and the same grief. I do not see why there should be a difference between deaths as a result of drug supply and other deaths.

Ms Ferguson: You mentioned the devastation that drugs have caused in the North. You said that 251 families have been affected by drug-related deaths, with 219 of those deaths meeting the official definition of "drug misuse". Is that over the past year?

Ms Duddy: Those are figures from 2024. The figures are not accurate, however, because if somebody takes a drug that induces a heart attack, resulting in a death, that is recorded on the death certificate as cardiac-related, not drug-related.

Ms Ferguson: Finally, how could stronger sentencing improve accountability for those who profit from the supply of drugs, thus assisting victims and their families?

Ms Duddy: At the minute, there is no deterrent, and they have no fear. When they appear in court in Northern Ireland, they know that they are getting a year or two years, tops. They are profiting off people's misery and grief, so a deterrent needs to be put in place to stop the supply.

Mr Kingston: I thank Pauline and those who are with her for highlighting the issue. Pauline, I was shocked by the figure that you cited of 251 drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland in 2024, 219 of which met the "drug misuse" definition. From looking at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) statistics online, I can see that the three-year rolling average has gone up from 178 to 191 deaths. That and the figures for 2024 show that drug-related deaths are a cause of immense suffering in our country and in society.

My question is similar to Doug's. In proposing Jasmin's law, are you calling for tougher sentences for all drug dealers — the people who cause that misery and loss of life — or just for those in cases involving minors and people who are vulnerable? Did you consider Jasmin to be vulnerable? I do not see any reference to minors and the vulnerable in your written submission. Are you highlighting the harm caused by drug dealers and the need to toughen sentences across the board as a disincentive?

Ms Duddy: Yes. Jasmin was very vulnerable. She had suffered trauma as a child and was attending counselling. Yes, there should be tougher sentences for all those who supply drugs, but drug dealers have to be held accountable for supplying to minors. Minors — children under the age of 18 — do not understand the dangers of drugs. Jasmin's law is therefore about having tougher sentences for anybody who supplies illegal drugs.

Mr Kingston: OK. I asked that just to assist our understanding of the focus of your campaign.

Are you aware of any aggravators that are currently being used in the sentencing of people who supply drugs to children or people who are vulnerable? Have you investigated what sentences are being handed down? Are any harsher sentences being handed down?

Ms Duddy: Not that I am aware of. At present, it takes four years for a drug death case to get to court, which —

Mr Kingston: Four years?

Ms Duddy: — is really tough on the family.

Mr Kingston: Does that mean that it takes four years for the case to come to court or four years for there to be a sentence given? Anyway, that is the timescale.

Ms Duddy: It takes four years for the case to get to court so that there can be a sentence. A four-year wait is tough on a family when the case concerns somebody who supplied their child with drugs. A family waits four years for any kind of answer.

Mr Kingston: The need to speed up the justice system is an ongoing issue for us.

Ms Duddy: Yes.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you for coming in today and for all that you are doing to highlight the issue.

Ms Egan: Thank you all so much for coming in. We cannot comprehend how tough this is for you — you should not have to come here to do this — and I am just so sorry for the loss of Jasmin. So much of your submission and what you have said today touches on the work of the Committee, but you also highlighted the need to link better with healthcare services, the need for drugs to be intercepted before they enter the community and the need for vulnerable people to have better support before they become addicted, when drug dealers can exploit them.

A lot of the questions that I was going to ask have been answered. I was really shocked when you said that the person who supplied your Jasmin with drugs was sentenced to six months. I struggle to see how, when the sentence in the guidelines is 14 years, the sentence handed down could be six months, of which the person served three.

I do not know whether you are aware that the Bill sets out the principles of sentencing. That is really important. Clause 1(2) states that the purposes of sentencing are:

I do not know whether you agree, but I do not see how a three-month sentence can protect people or make the offender understand the hurt that they have caused and the damage that they have done in order to prevent them from doing it again.

Ms Duddy: We received a life sentence.

Ms Egan: Absolutely.

Ms Leeann McLaughlin: I lost my daughter in 2023. She was only 16. I have never had any contact from any of the authorities to tell me what is happening in the world. I was supposed to be in court last week, but it was cancelled again on me. I am living in hell.

Ms Egan: That is just —.

Ms McLaughlin: It is disgusting. The person who sold my daughter the drugs has already been charged. She pleaded guilty. She lives in my town. She has had anonymity from day 1. I have to pass hers to go to the graveyard. It is so hard.

Ms Egan: I cannot even imagine.

Ms McLaughlin: I know that she is only going to get a slap on the wrist. How do I deal with all that? There is nobody there for me.

Ms Egan: When you have lost your loved one. I am so sorry. Thank you for coming here today and making your case. This is really important.

Ms McLaughlin: It needs to change. People need to be taken to court straight away.

Ms Egan: Absolutely. Thank you all so much. I know that this is not easy, but I really hope that the work of the Committee and the Department will bring about real, meaningful change.

Mr McGlone: My apologies. I was delayed this morning and missed your presentation. I have read your paper, however.

Have you engaged with the Minister?

Ms Duddy: Yes, we have spoken with the Minister on two different occasions: May 2024 and June 2026.

Mr McGlone: Have you had meetings with her?

Ms Duddy: Yes.

Mr McGlone: What were the outcomes? Did the Minister give you any assurances about what she might do?

Ms Duddy: She said that she will review it in the next mandate. We cannot wait that long. The death rate continues to rise. A deterrent needs to be put in place now in order to protect lives.

Mr McGlone: To be clear, did the Minister say that she will direct the Department to do a review, but not in this mandate?

Ms Duddy: In the next mandate, but we cannot wait that long. It is the Government's responsibility to protect lives.

Mr McGlone: Has the Department even started a review?

Ms Duddy: She told us in May 2024 that she would get officials to start investigating. I spoke to Alan Weir in January 2025, and he said that he was looking into it. I often send him emails about different sentencing that happens on the mainland. I email him to let him know. Naomi, the Justice Minister, told us the same thing in June, which is that she has to get it right.

Mr McGlone: Apologies, Pauline, but who is Alan Weir? Does he work at the Department?

Ms Duddy: He is the head of the sentencing policy unit. I send him emails more or less every day. If I see something online from the mainland where somebody gets a tougher sentence than what they would get here, I email him. The Justice Minister has therefore said that the review will be in the next mandate, but, as I said, we cannot wait that long. Too many families are being torn apart. There is too much grief and heartache. Criminality is increasing because of drugs.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Pauline, thank you very much. You are doing very well. You are giving us very good information.

You will know that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contains classifications of drugs: class A, class B and class C. It also mentions offences to do with the supply, production and cultivation of drugs. Do you think that Jasmin's law, or, to take personality out of it, an aggravator for tougher sentencing, should apply to all three classes of drugs and to all the offences arising from the supply, production and cultivation of drugs?

Ms Duddy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You think that it should be a clean sweep.

Ms Duddy: Yes, it should apply to all of them. Prescription drugs, including pregabalin, which killed my daughter, are class C drugs. If somebody supplies a class C drug that kills somebody else, an aggravator has to be put in place.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Should the aggravator kick in only if there is a death?

Ms Duddy: No, because there are people lying in hospital with kidney failure and bladder failure caused by ketamine. The sentencing has to reflect the harm that is caused in each case.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Does there have to be an impact on the victim, such as a health issue, or is it simply about the supply of drugs to a vulnerable person or a minor?

Ms Duddy: No, it is about the supply of drugs. If there is no supply, there is no harm.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I am asking these question from the technical side of things in order to understand exactly what it would need to be in law. Class C takes in cannabis, I suspect.

Ms Duddy: Cannabis is class B, is it not?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Oh, is that class B?

Ms Duddy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You know more about this than I do, Pauline, that is for sure. You would be happy enough with the aggravator kicking in for cannabis and stuff like that.

Ms Duddy: Yes, all of it. Cannabis is a gateway drug. Once someone does not get the desired effect from cannabis, they move on gradually to a heavier class of drug.

Mr Beattie: I was very moved by something that you said, Leeann. This is evidence that I am trying to gather. You are victims, so you will be part of the victims' information scheme — or are you not part of it?

Ms Duddy: No.

Mr Beattie: Why are you not part of the victims' information scheme?

Ms Duddy: They are drug-related deaths.

Mr Beattie: Does that mean that you are not getting any information whatsoever?

Ms Duddy: We are getting no information at all, from the day and hour our children —.

Ms McLaughlin: My daughter died after a concert, and, the next day, I learned that the woman who had sold her the tablets in my home town was taken to a hotel, whereas my daughter went to the morgue. I waited for her to come home on the Tuesday — no, it was not the Tuesday; she was to come home on the Monday night. That wee girl just walks around and does not — it is just nuts.

Ms Duddy: They had Leeann's daughter down as having no —.

Ms McLaughlin: I had a phone call from the PPS 18 months later, and the CID had sent my daughter's information back stating that there were no next of kin and no witnesses to her death. Nobody was looking into it. I thought, "What are you telling me here?". That is all the information that I had from the PPS.

Mr Beattie: Let me labour this, because it is really important. Did you receive information before? Pauline, you said that the perpetrator in your daughter's case got six months. Did you get information leading up to the trial, and then, when the trial took place and he got six months, did the information suddenly die? Or did you find that there was no information flow at all?

Ms Duddy: There was none at all. I found out by sheer accident that he had been charged with supplying my daughter. I then had to be at every court hearing to find out. It was not public knowledge, because he had anonymity in place. I had to go to every hearing that he was at to find out when his next hearing would be. Every four or six weeks for two years, I had to sit in the Magistrates' Court for remand hearings and then in the Crown Court for the preliminary examination. The day that he was sentenced, I did not know that it was a sentencing hearing.

Mr Beattie: Pauline, that is totally unacceptable, I have to say. I will ask one final question, so that I am absolutely clear. I am being told that many victims do not want information. Once it is done, it is done, and they want to move on. However, I am not getting that from victims whom I talk to. To confirm, would you want the information before trial, after trial and on release — all of that information?

Ms Duddy: Yes. Everything. We have a right to know. We have buried our children.

Ms McLaughlin: It is important. I waited six months because all the barristers were on strike. My new date was the twenty-ninth. I believe that the CID man, Michael King — I think that that is his name — enjoyed phoning me the day before to say, "Ms McLaughlin, the court is not on tomorrow".

Mr Beattie: What was your daughter's name?

Ms McLaughlin: Caitlin McLaughlin. That is all I got. I waited months and months. It is terrible, the way you have to —.

Mr Beattie: Please accept my condolences on the loss of your beautiful daughter Caitlin.

Ms McLaughlin: It is just —.

Mr Beattie: Thank you. It is difficult, I know, but I just needed to get that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is all the members who have indicated.

Ms McLaughlin: Those things need to be looked at. Families need to know what is happening.

Mr Beattie: I get it. I absolutely agree.

Ms McLaughlin: You are living in the dark, and they keep you in the dark.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much. In the interest of the record and for the benefit of Hansard, Leeann McLaughlin has given evidence today too. That is OK; do not worry. I say that so that Hansard knows exactly who you are and can attribute that evidence to you. Of course, Tracey Poole is also here.

Thank you very much for your evidence. We really appreciate it. It is not easy to come here, but it is certainly not easy to do so in the circumstances that brought you here. We sympathise with you, and our thoughts and prayers are with you all in respect of your loss.

Ms Duddy: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much for coming here today.