Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 16 June 2026.

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 5624710

Text

I thank the Minister for her intervention. I certainly understand the logic behind her arguments. I remain at a place where I think that there is a difference. I understand that, when we are drafting legislation, there has to be a level of definition when it comes to some crimes. However, I still do not accept the argument that a child of that age will realise that attempted murder is wrong but will have a different view of grievous bodily harm with intent. I will move on. I did not want to speak for that long, but I will make a couple of other points. It is right and proper that, as we look at this issue — I will come on to victims in a minute — we look at the perpetrators of those crimes. We are talking about very serious crimes. I was very glad that my colleague Mr Givan stated clearly that some of the perpetrators of those crimes come from incredibly challenging backgrounds. I listened to the contribution from the Member for North Belfast while I was upstairs. I apologise for not being down here. We know that those from care-experienced backgrounds are much more likely to have an encounter with the justice system. When they commit those crimes, they need rehabilitation because, at some point, we want them to come out the other side of that justice system as reasonable young people who can integrate back into society. They will need support, including education, to integrate into society, but they will need that in a secure setting. That brings me to another point. We talk a lot about criminalising those young people. That term has been used a lot in the debate. People beyond the Chamber may not understand the nuances of what we are talking about in here. When an 11-year-old or a 12-year-old commits a very serious offence — the number of such cases is incredibly small — they are not sent to Maghaberry or another prison. I will defer to the Minister of Justice if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, in a situation in which a serious crime has been committed, the young person is most likely to end up in the Woodlands facility in my constituency. That facility — I looked it up — offers secure accommodation, education and training, healthcare and mental health support, recreation and sports facilities, and programmes aimed at reducing reoffending and helping young people to return to the community.
If a young person commits a serious crime, that is where they go.

429 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.06 (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 (0.92).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.04	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.04	No
Controversy escalation	0.04	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.92	Yes
Overall judgement	0.06	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.61
No identity-related subject	0.24
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.07
Another identity-related subject	0.04
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits	0.02

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.

Challenge this classification