Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 15 June 2026.

MLA: Mr Peter Martin
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 15 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5615201

Text

I thank the Member for giving way. He was talking about amendment Nos 79 and 82 and the disparity. I have listened carefully to the arguments that others have made in the Chamber, while, clearly, not agreeing with them. The proposed new clause lists the offences of murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. Just to highlight the slightly arbitrary nature of that list of heinous crimes, I point out that attempted rape is not on that list. Murder, attempted murder and rape are on the list, but attempted rape is not. Therefore, a victim could be kidnapped, perhaps even bound, going through that trauma before being rescued at some point by a third party, yet that would not be chargeable under the amendments. I listened to those Members, most of whom are not here now because they have all gone home, and I have not understood from their arguments where that list has come from or why, for example, GBH with intent, which is another heinous crime, has somehow not made the list. Does the Member agree that the list looks arbitrary at best and poorly designed at worst?

190 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.04 (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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.02	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	0.94	Yes
Overall judgement	0.04	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.56
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.37
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.07
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.

Challenge this classification