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 5614893
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. He has been generous with his time. I do not doubt that what the Member says and believes is sincere: that the criminal justice system is often the only intervention that young people get. I hope that he agrees that it should not be. If young people are starting to go off the rails, we want to intervene more quickly. However, here is a question: do you accept that, if somebody lures a child into criminal activity, child criminal exploitation or other things, that child's fear of being prosecuted for the actions they have undertaken, even if it was under coercion, or their fear of not being recognised as a victim of coercive control and of child criminal exploitation might drive a wedge between the child, the police and the other services, because they will be afraid of saying, "Yes, I took drugs", "Yes, I delivered drugs" or, "Yes, I committed criminal offences at age 12, 13 and 10"? The risk is that, instead of a child seeking help for what happened at that young age and being diverted away from that activity, they will be afraid of disclosing what is happening to them. For example, if a young girl is taken from a care home, fed full of drugs and God knows what else happens to her while she is absent from that place, the bigger fear on her part might be admitting that she has taken drugs. As a result, all the other exploitation that took place might never be uncovered. That is the difference between criminalising the behaviours of a young, vulnerable person and trying to put in place proper protective measures. I agree with the Member that such measures are not there yet. I have said that a number of times, but I believe that they can and should be there and that the justice system should not be there to take up that slack.
Will the Member give way?
They are afraid because they have committed a criminal offence. They are fearful that they will end up in a youth justice centre or, when they are older, Hydebank Wood or that they will end up with a criminal record that might stop them ever being able to travel outside the jurisdiction. It is not that they are afraid of the individuals. My colleague already talked about the importance of relationship building in getting young people to have that trust and confidence. That is what the Youth Justice Agency does every day. With respect, it is not a failure of the justice system. The justice system engages with vulnerable young people who have committed offences to try to divert them from the system at the earliest point, but that will not happen until there has been some finding of fact against them. That is the damage that is done, and that is what they are afraid of when it comes to making disclosures.
Will the Member give way?
499 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 (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 | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.72 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.19 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.