Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- 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 5615466
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. The Member opposite described the UNCRC and some of the amendments being debated as progressive. The Member may be aware of the recent case in Hampshire where two girls aged 14 and 15 were raped in separate incidents by two 14-year-old boys and another boy who was 13. They videoed the rapes. They were not even given custodial sentences. In fact, that was referred to the Attorney General. We have talked about perpetrators and the conditions that perpetrators sometimes find themselves in, but, at the heart of this, there are still victims, and those victims require some level of justice. Some of the crimes that we are considering this evening are appalling, so victims should be in the middle of this, and many of those victims — perhaps not all — will want some level of justice for crimes such as that that I just mentioned. Does the Member agree?
157 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: 0.12 (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 (0.83).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | 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 | 0.51 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:58 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.