Debate contribution: Age of Criminal Responsibility: Doli Incapax
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Age of Criminal Responsibility: Doli Incapax
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601737
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was abolished in 1998 as part of an overhaul of wider youth justice legislation. No consideration has been given to its reintroduction as part of my Department’s work to review and increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Doli incapax enabled the prosecution of some younger children, if it could be proven that they had the cognitive maturity to understand that their actions represented serious wrongdoing. In the years since its abolition, advances in neuroscience have shown that children’s brains are still maturing well into adolescence and that they lack the cognitive, emotional and moral capacity to be held criminally responsible in the same way as adults. That is a scientific fact, and we should not force children to prove it to the courts. Our understanding of the impact of trauma, adverse childhood incidents and societal factors on children has also increased in recent years, and we know that many of those factors can lead children into offending behaviour. That has resulted in the adoption of a child-first approach to youth offending. Consequently, the number of children facing prosecution has greatly reduced. Indeed, it is extremely rare for a child under the age of 14 to be sentenced to custody in Northern Ireland. Reintroducing doli incapax would have a significant operational impact on justice partners, particularly the police and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), who would be faced with having to process every child who is accused and arrested up to the point of an assessment and a decision being made. In many cases, that could be nugatory work at a time when resources are stretched. I therefore do not believe that returning to doli incapax is in the best interests of children, victims or communities. Instead, we should focus on working with children to help them to understand the impact and consequences of their behaviour, encourage them to take responsibility for their actions and support them to make changes and avoid future offending. That is the most effective way to ensure that our communities are safer and that the number of victims is reduced.
358 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.62 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.34 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:50 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.