Debate contribution: Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5653410
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is always very generous with giving way. It is helpful, however, to answer the questions as we go, rather than to stockpile them for the end of the debate. It will always be for the judge to decide the extent of disclosure. Providing the witness in a sexual assault case — or the victim, in cases that are finally proven — with a voice in that decision rebalances an existing imbalance. For example, where a judge would normally make the decision about what is required under disclosure, that application would be made by the defence. In some ways, the Public Prosecution Service has very little skin in the game when it comes to the extent of disclosure or to limiting the disclosure, other than in the time that it takes to go through it. The victim, however, actually does have a lot at stake if the disclosure is a fishing expedition and goes too wide. Their concerns being heard is one of the things that will help a judge to reach the right conclusions. From my point of view, this is about simply rebalancing the scales a bit compared with where we are at the moment so that the views of the accuser are taken into account when it comes to disclosure. Ultimately, however, the decision will still rest with the judiciary, which is the right place for it to rest.
233 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: 0.04 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.63 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.18 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.18 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:11 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.