Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5614556
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way, and I apologise to her for being a bit late to the Chamber and missing the start of her speech. I agree with her. She mentioned trauma-informed care, therapeutic support and family interventions. Those are all incredibly effective ways of dealing with some children who may end up in our justice system. I agree with the Member that those interventions need to be put in place before the age of 10. They need to be put in place earlier and faster. On the basis of the amendments that we are discussing, I struggle with what will happen to the victims of serious crimes, who may not be classed as victims any more. She mentioned that 305 10-to-12 year-olds had become known to the justice system this year. We are talking about incredibly serious crimes where there are victims of those crimes. What happens if a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old commits a serious crime, and the victims' family wants to see justice and the young person going to a secure facility where they will not harm other people?
184 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: 0.07 (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).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.63 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.29 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:55 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.