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
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5624681
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will take an intervention from the Member on the opposite Benches in a moment. I would like to answer the Member for North Antrim first. I absolutely accept that. The Member very kindly took an intervention from me last night, or certainly there was some chat about this in the Chamber. I completely accept that not all victims will have the same outlook, and certainly not in the context that she is or I am sharing. Victims will have different views and opinions about what they see as justice, as recompense or, for example, as rehabilitation and about how they see society being made safe. I accept that from the Member. I say to her, however, that there will also be families who, in the situation that I have just described, will want what they might call justice. They will want the offence to be treated as a prosecutable crime. They are as entitled to that as another family who will say, "Actually, we want restorative justice for the perpetrator of this crime". My difficulty with the amendment is that it removes the possibility of the family whom I am talking about having recourse to justice. It would remove the vehicle that would allow them to have that.
I will, but I will take an intervention from the Member across the way.
223 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: 0.10 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:56 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.