Debate contribution: Criminal Responsibility: Minimum Age
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Responsibility: Minimum Age
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496412
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have been very clear about my commitment to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in Northern Ireland in order to bring us closer to meeting international standards, including those set by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). At 10 years of age, our current MACR is the lowest in Europe. In raising it, we are saying not that children's offending behaviour should be ignored but that children should not face the full force of the justice system. In order to seek the views of the public on this important issue, I agreed to a consultation, which was carried out in 2022. It showed overwhelming support for an increase in the MACR, with over 83% of respondents agreeing that the age should be increased beyond 10 years. The majority supported an increase to 14 years. On the basis of the outcome of the consultation, my officials have developed an options paper. I intend to share it with my Executive colleagues to seek their views on my proposals. As any increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility requires legislative change, it will not be possible for me to progress the matter in the absence of Executive approval.
203 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: 0.03 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:43 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.