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 5601091
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Broadly, I welcome that approach. Again, I am happy to give way on this. In my earlier comments, I stated that, from reading the amendments, somebody could be found guilty even if they did not know any of the people in the group and even if a crime that they were supposedly part of was never actually carried out. That is my reading of it, and that is concerning. I have no issue with what the Minister said in her intervention, but there are still wider points. I appreciate that I may be in a minority of one, but that is still the position that I hold. Amendment No 70 repeals the vagrancy laws. Obviously, I support that. That is very much welcome. The Vagrancy Act is a 200-year-old law, the entire purpose of which was to criminalise poverty and the poor, to kick them, to lock them up and to make it a crime to be homeless and to be forced to beg. It is Dickensian through and through. It has no place in modern society, and it should have been done away with a long time ago. Nobody should be arrested for being poor. Obviously, I will support that amendment, and I commend the Minister for tabling it.
Having said that, I have concerns with amendment No 71. I am happy to give way on this. Like most people, my party and I welcome the repeal of a law that criminalises the poor. However, I am not sure about waving through a new one, by way of amendment No 71, which, again, is extraordinarily broad. We would be making it an offence to be "in any enclosed area" with:
"intent to commit an offence" —
any offence at all —
"(whether or not on the premises)."
That criminalises intention and presence. In my view, it is ripe for misuse, not only against homeless people who are sheltering wherever they can — who would blame them for doing so? — but, potentially, protestors who are using their right to freedom of speech. Hopefully, we will soon repeal a law that criminalises the vulnerable, so let us not pass another that will do the exact same thing. Amendment No 72 relates to facilitating begging for gain. I have major issues with that amendment. It would do a similar thing to amendment No 71, which is to criminalise through the back door. While it is likely that the House will repeal the vagrancy law, amendment No 71 would bring a similar activity into criminal law. Poverty is —.
434 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: 0.05 (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 (0.98).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.40 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.37 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.20 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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.