Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Amendments on Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
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
- Justice Bill: Amendments on Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601826
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Schools already have disciplinary policies in place, not all of which, as things stand, require every incident to be referred to the PSNI. As I made clear in the Chamber earlier and will no doubt make clear again in the days to come, this is not about allowing people under the age of 14 not to be held accountable for their actions. It is important that young people be held accountable for them, particularly if those actions involve intimidation or sexual intent. There are public protection and public safety elements that need to be dealt with. I do not believe, however, that a criminal response is always the right one, particularly in the case of younger children. It is therefore important that we hold children to account in an age-appropriate way, with the right support, so that they can desist from their offending, understand the seriousness of their actions and, hopefully, put them behind them and move on to live productive and constructive lives, which is what we all want for our young people.
174 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.78 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.18 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:51 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.