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 5624691
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her intervention and am happy to address it. She said that young people may or may not fully understand the implications of their actions. I was not going to make this point, but I will now. The Member's comment takes me back to the fact that amendments with exceptions were tabled. When I think about that, I wonder whether the signatories to those amendments are making a case that children of a certain age understand that some crimes are wrong and some are not. For example, are they saying that a child of 13 will understand that — these are the Member's exceptions — murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration are wrong but that, somehow, the same child of 13 will have a different understanding of attempted rape or grievous bodily harm? To be honest, if the Member is making the case that it is about reason, Gillick competency or, as she just said, children fully understanding their actions, the very fact that she has put in five exceptions leaves her in muddy water. To be clear, I would not support that case. I will let the Member back in after the Member from the Alliance Party. Either children understand that difference at 13 or they do not. No child will say, "Do you know what? I know that manslaughter is bad, so I will not do it, but attacking someone with a claw hammer is OK". That does not make any sense. It is certainly not my understanding of childhood development. I hope that I have answered the Member's point. The Member has waited patiently.
I am sorry.
277 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: 0.12 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | 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 | 0.67 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.26 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.