Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5584884
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The question of whether a judge finds someone in contempt is to do with their conduct in the trial. It has nothing to do with live links. People are regularly held in contempt of court when they are there in person. What is key to note is that, to date, there has been no example of a case that has been overturned on appeal or on any other basis because of the fact that it used live links. I ask that the Member bear in mind that the success that we have seen in, for example, remote evidence centres, particularly with vulnerable witnesses and child witnesses, has hinged entirely on their being able to appear via a live link. It creates a much better environment for them than court does, because it is an environment that is less intimidating and less frightening. We therefore need not to be doomsayers when it comes to live links. It is important that they be used in the interests of justice, and that caveat is already in the Bill, but it is also important that we recognise how beneficial live links have been, particularly in speeding up court processes. For example, they have allowed more expert witnesses to give evidence remotely, which is beneficial, and facilitated our ability to run the remote evidence centres for the most vulnerable people in the justice system.
Will the Member give way?
I am not sure from where the Member got the impression that I am frightened of any review. I think that it is slightly unnecessary to review the efficacy of the process. As a result of the Coronavirus Act, the live link provisions have been in operation successfully for six years now. More than that, many of the other things to which the Member refers that have been corralled in the Bill to provide clarity and streamline legislation have been in operation for years. Some of them have been in operation from as early as 2003. That therefore is the issue. It is not about fear. Rather, it is about the unnecessary work associated with doing a further review when we got to this stage with live links.
362 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.77 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:46 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.