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
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5614811
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I completely agree with the Minister, and that is why we do not send children to prison. She talks about the law needing to catch up, but what we really want to see is this: all the systems that the Minister has just talked about wrapping around those children before we even touch the age of criminal responsibility. If those areas were covered, if we treated people fairly, victims and perpetrators, especially young perpetrators, and gave them justice and accountability, we would be in a far better place to look at the age of criminal responsibility and make an informed choice, but we are not there yet. We are still failing victims and child perpetrators on a range of issues, one of which is that it is a big, dark world out there, with evil perpetrators exploiting children and victims. We have heard rosy, fluffy words tonight. We have heard that there should be a framework in place to discourage harmful behaviour — that means crime, folks — and that there will be end-to-end pathways and specific protocols. Well, I ain't seen anything yet.
Yes. I will give way to the Minister.
192 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: 0.08 (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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | 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 | 0.63 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.27 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.