Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5584990
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her intervention. Just to be clear, we do not want to see the age of criminal responsibility rise. Irrespective, however, of the petition of concern and the number of Members who have signed the notice so far, we also know that the age of criminal responsibility could be raised. Even if it is not, however, we still believe that the courts should have youth custody and supervision orders at their disposal. In her speech or maybe it was in an intervention, the Minister outlined all the serious tools that the court can use to place youngsters and children in custody. We are just saying that they should be applied across the board, so that the court can use them at its discretion. That is why we think that it is neater if we leave that at the age of criminal responsibility, irrespective of whether that is 10, 12, 14 or 16, according to the will of the House. We will know for sure that a youth custody and supervision order can be used for any child over the age of criminal responsibility. Judges and the courts will know that also. It therefore does not create the differential that the Lady Chief Justice was concerned about, as I mentioned. I hope that that clarifies our position.
I am not a million miles from the Member's position on that. We do not want to see young people being put in custody. That is why we have the Youth Justice Agency and youth justice courts. I therefore agree that our positions are not that far away from each other. I am sure that we will return to the issue when we come to debate the amendments in group 6.
291 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: 0.06 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.54 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.42 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| 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.