Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601089
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Two offences are being created because I share, to a degree, the Member's concern. One is participating in organised crime, and, crucially, the other is directing it. I think that many people are concerned that those who participate, particularly at the margins, may be the ones who normally face court and sanction while those who sit at the centre, directing it and benefiting most from it, often have the ability to evade that because they are not hands-on in committing the crime. This legislation gives us the opportunity to catch those individuals for directing the organised crime, but, crucially, it does not cut across the defence of coercion. Therefore, if somebody has been genuinely forced to undertake criminal activity, either as a result of intimidation or threat, or some other form of coercion, that is a legitimate defence. Indeed, if they have been exploited criminally, that may provide them with the opportunity to be referred to the national referral mechanism if it cuts across modern slavery. I want to reassure the Member that there is nothing in this that is about trying to put more vulnerable people in front of the courts. It is about trying to get to the kingpins of criminal organisations.
204 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: 0.03 (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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.80 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
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.