Debate contribution: Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5653413
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for that intervention, because it is very useful. What we do not want, and what we have to try to stop, is people's information about their private life being used to discredit them in some way and to humiliate them in other ways, thereby causing further trauma. That is what we are trying to defend against and get away from. Of course, we have to ensure that there is balance in the justice system and on the right to a fair and an appropriate trial for the accused. That is really important. As the Minister said, decisions will be taken by the judiciary, but we have to make sure that there is consistency of approach right across the various courts in the court system. Each case will be judged on its individual merits and circumstances, but we will need to make sure that the laws that we pass here are applied correctly and consistently across the board. Some sort of review mechanism might be needed, where we can consider how effective the new disclosure application processes are. That might be something for the future as we look through the Bill. I will go on to the Minister's utterances on Caoimhe's law and on character references. Although she will appreciate the difficulties and the burdens placed on the Committee regarding workload, as with the workload in her Department, and that it will not be possible for the Committee to pick up that burden on its own, as the DUP justice spokesperson, I am sure that the Committee and its members will work with the Department and the Minister to try to get the best outcome possible and to ensure that we advance these issues. We will work, and we will certainly not be a burden or an obstacle when it comes to progressing these laws. We as a party commit to working in good faith with the Minister and the Department in trying to advance a lot of the amendments and any others that come up. I give her the guarantee that, if we have any brainstorming sessions where we look for amendments, we will certainly get to them as early as we possibly can so that the Department and the Minister can have sight of them and make a good assessment of those amendments as they come and as we think of them. This is another good day in the life of the Assembly as a legislature. Again, I emphasise that the Bill has victims and witnesses at its heart, so it is a good day. I will take great pleasure and honour in working on and scrutinising the Bill in the Committee. I will see where I can table amendments to it to make it even better legislation.
Yes, I will.
I thank the Minister for that. Throughout the Consideration Stage debates on the Justice Bill, we had good humour. That has been a marked change during the years that I have been Chair of the Committee. I have really enjoyed the engagement that we have had with the Minister and the Department in all of the processes and debates. In that spirit, I will work with the Minister throughout Committee Stage and at the further legislative stages to get what we all want, which is good legislation. I can give you a commitment now, Minister, that I have nothing in my head at the minute, so at the next stage you will not be able to say that I brought half a Bill, as I said to you, Minister, at the Second Reading of the Justice Bill. The debate will be good-natured and robust. The Bill will be scrutinised, the Committee will do its work diligently, and we will get to a point where we can have a Consideration Stage that is just as productive as the one that we had on the Justice Bill.
651 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 (0.72).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.41 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
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.