Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601083
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to speak to the amendments in group 3. I think that there has been a bit of a misunderstanding in this debate about left ideology. I will maybe come to that if it is in line with the amendments. I would never dare stray from the topic of conversation. Amendment Nos 45 to 48 deal with organised crime offences. We all know the damage that organised crime does in communities like mine. In west Belfast, paramilitary gangs run loan-sharking, drugs and extortion, and they use fear to control people. That harm has to be confronted head-on. There is no equivocation or disagreement around that, but I am not convinced that the amendments are the way to do that, as I will outline. I am happy to be corrected through interventions, but my reading of the amendments is that they are drawn very widely. Under the participation offence, a person can be found guilty even though they did not know any of the people in the group, even though the crime that they were supposedly part of was never actually carried out and even where the things that they did were not, in themselves, criminal. The directing offence carries a sentence of up to 14 years. That is guilt by association. They are broad offences that hand sweeping discretion to the Police Service, which already over-polices the very communities that it claims to protect, and the Public Prosecution Service. Therefore, I have some concerns about that, to put it mildly. The problem of criminal gangs is real. There is no equivocation on that, but I think that the tool to deal with it is the wrong one. I do not think that you break the grip of paramilitaries by creating offences so loose that they could catch people on the margins while the powerful leaders stay out of reach.
Sure.
312 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.80).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.11 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.94 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| 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.