Debate contribution: Terrorism-related Offenders
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
- Terrorism-related Offenders
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496451
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In September 2021, my Department established the multi-agency review arrangements, known as MARA, to assess and manage the risks posed by terrorist risk offenders (TROs). That is in line with article 50 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, which makes provision for the management of offenders who may cause serious harm to the public. In discharging that function, MARA brings together the Department of Justice and supervising officers appointed on the Department’s behalf, along with representatives from the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Terrorist risk offenders are managed under MARA from the point of conviction through to the expiry of their licence period. Under the arrangements, supervising officers work with partners to conduct risk assessments; prepare risk management plans; provide reports for review by the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland; and monitor those offenders who have been released into the community. Those arrangements enhance and support public protection.
156 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.48 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.58 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.42 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:44 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.