The Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) is today bringing a motion to the Northern Ireland Assembly calling for "fundamental change" within the criminal justice system, specifically addressing concerns over lenient sentencing practices.

Doug Beattie MC MLA, the UUP's justice spokesperson, stated the motion aims to debate "the culture within our judiciary, sentencing criteria and guidelines, as well as how we support victims and deal with the extraordinary repeat offending rate."

Mr Beattie emphasised a growing lack of public confidence in the system, citing a recent Criminal Justice Inspection Report. This report, he noted, found "limited improvement in the overall performance of the criminal justice system" since the devolution of policing and justice 15 years ago, and a lack of "collectively agreed vision or strategic priorities." According to the report, this has resulted in "criminal justice outcomes remaining relatively static despite numerous strategies and policies, with impactful change being slow."

While acknowledging the Department of Justice or the Minister might disagree with the report, Mr Beattie asserted it reflects the reality for many involved in the system as perpetrators, victims, witnesses, or service providers. He described it as "one of the most damning reports to have been written about our criminal justice system and it must prompt change." He urged the Justice Minister not to "turn a blind eye to its findings or hide behind the slippery statements of 'independence of the judiciary' or 'it's an operational matter'." The UUP motion proposes compulsory continuous personal development training for the judiciary. This, Mr Beattie explained, would ensure judges "are keeping up to pace with changes in justice best practices, but more importantly, societal changes." He highlighted the need for this training to "challenge the language used by some when outlining a sentence," referencing a case where a serious sex offender was told to "find a wife and start a family" while still being allowed to access dating sites. Currently, the Lady Chief Justice, through the Judicial Studies Board, invites judges to training sessions, a structure the UUP believes should become compulsory.

Mr Beattie argued that "the issue of lenient sentencing is fast becoming a major issue." He pointed to "pitiful sentences" handed down for serious crimes, particularly those of a sexual nature, including against children. He asserted that the public desires "stronger and longer sentences for serious crimes" as a deterrent. While supporting the principle of rehabilitation, he questioned its effectiveness given that "nearly 80% of those presently in our prisons are repeat offenders."

The UUP also criticised the current consultation on sentence credit for pleading guilty, which can reduce a sentence by up to a third. Mr Beattie found this "totally unacceptable," arguing it "is putting the perpetrator in the driving seat." He proposed that there should only be "one opportunity to plead guilty to have time taken off your sentence, that is at arraignment or before." A late guilty plea, he suggested, should only affect the license element of a sentence, not the custodial part, thereby putting "the judiciary in the driving seat and not the perpetrator."

Furthermore, the UUP believes a sentencing council, similar to those in England and Wales, would bring "far greater transparency and consistency with clear guidelines and sentencing remarks that can be understood." Mr Beattie contrasted the clarity of sentencing remarks for the Southport murderer Alex Rudakubana with Northern Ireland's "complicated, impossible to understand, lack clarity or openness" remarks, which are "based primarily on case law using language few will comprehend." He also highlighted the lack of a system for victims to receive a free copy of sentencing remarks in a timely manner.

While respecting the independent judiciary and the Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan's view that a sentencing council would be "overly rigid and constricting," Mr Beattie concluded that "for many, the system has not served them well, and it is time we had fundamental change within our criminal justice system." He stressed that "challenging the system is not about challenging the independence of the judiciary, it's about adding value to a system that is losing confidence."