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 5584910
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is a very technical point. As I said, those are expert witnesses. This is an efficient way to do business, in that it allows them to be more available to the court without having to cancel days of their normal work environment in order to make themselves available. They are able to attend court remotely, and they have the capability to do so. They are often being cross-examined on very technical issues. It is not about creating a two-tier system. If the judge believes that the person needs to be present in the court, they still have the flexibility to request that where it is in the interests of justice, as they do with anyone else. There should not be shame in people having to attend court. That is a presumption of guilt on the part of those who arrive at court. If there is shame, that is part of the reason why we reorganised the Courts and Tribunals Service, because people who are going into the building may be attending court or a tribunal or other court business such as, for example, where they are going through probate because someone is deceased. We need to be careful about making pejorative judgements about people who have to attend court. That is not the issue of substance here. This is about efficiency, effectiveness and ensuring that expert witnesses can be available at the discretion of the court.
237 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: 0.05 (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 (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.97 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.