Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill
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
- Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601789
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As Members will be aware, I had hoped to be able to do that at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill for new offences to criminalise the creation or sharing of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images. Unfortunately, we were unable to do it via an LCM, which would have brought us into line with England and Wales. It would also have left us with a gap, given the structure of our own laws. Therefore, it is better that we do it locally and have the opportunity to scrutinise it here in the Assembly. As we have moved on into the drafting phase, however, it has become apparent that this is an exceptionally complex issue and that more time is needed to ensure a proportionate, robust and comprehensive response to addressing all aspects of that behaviour. Therefore, in the interests of ensuring the effective progression of the Justice Bill, I have decided to look at alternative options in the form of other legislative vehicles that will be available to me in bringing forward those proposals within the current mandate. That includes the potential to use the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill or, indeed, the victims and witnesses Bill.
197 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 (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.65 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.21 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.