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
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5624489
Read the official Assembly record
Text
For fear of my being lumped in with the Alliance Party, I need to clarify my position. The amendments that were tabled on behalf of the party were to try to rescue the situation from the very dangerous position in which we would have been. Of course, this party's position is that we felt that raising the age would be too dangerous a step to take. That is why the petitions of concern were submitted. I make this point to the Members, who are both Ministers. The Minister of Justice talked about her framework, on which we did not really get any detail yesterday. That work can now continue among all the Departments and all the Ministers to ensure that, going forward, young people are treated with the most sensitivity that they can possibly be treated with, with accountability alongside that. When that work is completed, that is when we can return to the decision on the minimum age of criminal responsibility.
162 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: 0.13 (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 (0.65).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.59 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.19 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 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.