Motion or amendment: Improving Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr John Blair on .
- MLA
- Mr John Blair
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 5 June 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Improving Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland”
- Heading
- Improving Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 442421
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Improving Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘repeat offenders,’ and insert: ‘highlighting the importance of cross-government working to reduce reoffending, including in the areas of rehabilitation, employment and financial security, physical and mental health, and housing; believes that sentencing should reflect the seriousness of crimes and meet the expectations of victims and wider society; welcomes the Minister of Justice’s plans to introduce a Sentencing Bill and conduct a wider sentencing review to support greater consistency, transparency and robustness in sentencing; calls on the Minister of Justice to launch a public consultation on the establishment of a Sentencing Council for Northern Ireland; and further calls on the courts to ensure that, in all relevant cases, victims are provided with written copies of sentencing remarks, at no cost to the victim and without delay.’
138 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.77 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.21 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:07 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.