Assembly debate: Burrows MLA raises free speech concerns over sanction against Gaston

(L-R) Ulster Unionist Party Leader, Jon Burrows and fellow North Antrim MLA Timothy Gaston (TUV)

Jon Burrows MLA has raised serious concerns in the Northern Ireland Assembly over the proportionality of a sanction recommended against his North Antrim colleague, Timothy Gaston MLA, warning that the response risks undermining fairness, free expression and public confidence in political accountability.

Speaking during an Assembly debate this week, Mr Burrows questioned whether sufficient justification had been provided by the Committee on Standards and Privileges for imposing one of the most severe sanctions available in relation to conduct that occurred 18 months ago.

He told the chamber that, against the backdrop of pressing societal challenges, the public may reasonably question the level of time, energy and public resources being devoted to the issue.

“I will cut to the chase,” Mr Burrows said.

“Mr Gaston has, I think, accepted that his conduct was suboptimal and not becoming of a Member. The real issue here is proportionality, because that is the nub of the matter.”

Mitigating factors highlighted

Drawing on his own experience of overseeing disciplinary regimes, Mr Burrows outlined what he described as clear and objective criteria normally used to assess whether a sanction is proportionate.

“The first factor is the seriousness of the issue being discussed,” he said.

“This was a serious issue, touching on safeguarding and matters at the heart of our democracy. However, the second factor is that this occurred early in Mr Gaston’s Assembly career, and there has been no repetition of the conduct since. That is clearly mitigating.”

Mr Burrows also pointed to Mr Gaston’s prompt apology, stressing that this is widely recognised across disciplinary and professional frameworks as a factor that should reduce the severity of any sanction.

“There is a long-established principle that sanctions should be the least punitive necessary to achieve their purpose,” he continued.

“In this case, the Committee has jumped to one of the most serious options available without adequately explaining why lesser sanctions were deemed insufficient. Given that there has been no repeat of the behaviour, it is difficult to see how excluding a Member for two days is justified.”

Freedom of expression concerns

A central plank of Mr Burrows’ argument related to freedom of expression, particularly political speech within a legislative setting.

“Members on the other side of the House often speak passionately about human rights,” he said.

“Article 10, which protects freedom of expression, affords its strongest protection to political speech. The legal position is very clear: when a legislator is speaking on a matter of public interest, only the most egregious breaches can justify sanction – let alone removing a Member from representing his constituents in North Antrim.”

He warned that excluding an elected representative, even temporarily, carries wider implications for democratic representation and public trust, particularly where less severe options may have been available.

Questions over ‘double counting’

Mr Burrows also challenged the committee’s finding of an additional breach of rule 10, suggesting it was unnecessary and duplicated other rule breaches already identified.

“Looking at this through the lens of professional misconduct, it appears to be a case of double counting,” he said.

“There is nothing in the rule 10 breach that is not already covered by rules 13 and 15. When fundamental rights like freedom of expression are engaged, proportionality also requires necessity. Anyone who truly believes in human rights must be satisfied that such a sanction is necessary – and that nothing less would suffice. In this case, other sanctions were clearly available.”

Call for balance and public confidence

Concluding his contribution, Mr Burrows stressed that accountability for elected representatives is essential, but said it must always be balanced with fairness and proportionality.

He argued that the process had resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of time and public money, adding that a lesser sanction would have achieved the intended purpose without the broader consequences.

Accountability, he said, should not come at the expense of common sense, warning that overly punitive measures risk alienating the public and diminishing confidence in Assembly standards processes.