Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5614832
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, we dealt with the issue of the recording of incidents. That would still happen because a victim will still have been created. We acknowledged that earlier. That will not be recorded as a crime, but it will still be recorded as an incident. The management of the risks posed by children and young persons who are under the age of 18 and fall under the definition of a relevant sexual or violent offender is not normally required to be multi-agency management, because they are normally under child protection from health and social care trusts. That is the normal way that an under-18 would be dealt with, so this is perhaps slightly different in that we are talking about a different age group. Exceptionally, however, if the health and social care trust, the Youth Justice Agency, the Prison Service or the Probation Board consider that that multi-agency risk assessment is required and that additional management is necessary, that can be provided in the case of a young person who, if they were an adult, would go into PPANI automatically but, as a young person, would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
To be absolutely clear, as things stand, the decision on the charges that are brought against an individual is made by the PPS, not by the barrister or defence counsel representing the potential defendant. The charge to which they would plead would therefore be the one that the PPS has brought. I accept the point that the Member makes that if, for example, the PPS is fearful that a charge of rape would not be made out in court and would not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it might offer a reduced charge. He is right that, in that case, it would not happen. The point, however, that he is making about it having anything to do with a choice on behalf of the young person or their defence team is simply incorrect. The decision is one for the PPS. If it believes that there is sufficient evidence, it would be able to prosecute such cases as it does currently.
351 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.14 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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.