Member's statement: Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: Petition of Concern
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: Petition of Concern
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5613312
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Last week, as was her right, Sian Mulholland raised in her Member's statement the issue of using petitions of concern. As is our right, we have tabled a petition of concern on something that we feel very concerned about. Like the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party states how important justice and the rule of law are, and its party policy is that the age of criminal responsibility should stay at 10. Its leader, Jon Burrows, claims that a change in that age would be dangerous, and we agree with him. He and his deputy leader, Diana Armstrong, have signed the petition of concern, and I thank them for that, as I thank our colleague from North Antrim Timothy Gaston who has signed it also. However, Jon is either the leader of the UUP or he is not. I ask the other Members to my left and those who are listening in their offices to please sign the petition of concern. Go along with your party policy and ensure that we do not see a change in the law today that will be detrimental to our people, to the victims of crime and to young people out there who may be targeted by criminal gangs. We do not use the petition of concern lightly, nor should you, but nor should UUP Members use it as a wedge against their leader. I ask the UUP to put its dysfunction to one side and sign the petition of concern, which is consistent with its party policy. Let us ensure that we retain the age at 10. If that is changed in the Justice Bill today, I will blame the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin, but the public should know that it happened because of the dysfunction of the UUP. I ask its Members to think carefully over the next couple of hours.
311 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: 0.23 (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 (0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.21 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.77 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.10 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.