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 4496416
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The effect will depend much on the agreed new minimum age, but it would affect only limited numbers of individuals, as few young children are currently dealt with through the formal justice system, thanks to the work of the Youth Justice Agency (YJA). If the MACR were to be raised to 12, for example, it would have affected a total of 63 children in 2022, as that was the number dealt with through the courts or diversionary measures. Only 12 of those cases were prosecuted at court, which is less than 1% of the number of children dealt with in that year. Some may see that as a reason not to make a change, but, as well as meeting our international obligations, raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility would send out a clear message that young children who offend need support, guidance and help, not criminalisation and punishment. Were the MACR to be raised, it would be our intention to work with partners across other statutory, community and voluntary sectors to agree a framework through which children engaging in criminal or antisocial behaviour could receive multi-agency support in the community to address their behaviour and the underlying issues.
We know that contact, particularly early contact, with the justice system tends not to augur well for people's long-term life outcomes. The longer we can keep our young people out of the justice system and provide them with the support that they need, the better for everyone in society.
248 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.95 | 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 | 0.72 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.23 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| 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.