Debate contribution: Rape Victims: Trial Support
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
- Rape Victims: Trial Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496471
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am planning a range of reforms that will add to the supports for rape victims, such as the establishment of remote evidence centres, advocacy and sexual offences legal advisers (SOLAs), which my Department has already introduced. Those new measures include legislation to provide for greater regulation of the use of victims' private information within the criminal justice disclosure process and to clarify when and how pre-trial third-party representation for victims of serious offences may be enabled. Those measures will support victims who wish to object to applications for the disclosure of their personal information, such as medical or counselling records, or to applications to admit evidence of their previous sexual history at trial. Subject to funding, I hope to launch a pilot to test pre-recorded cross-examination, before the end of the mandate, and to establish SOLAs for child victims. I look forward to receiving a report on some ongoing research into attrition in serious sexual offence cases and will use the findings to develop further measures to increase victims' confidence to be able to report sexual crime and to remain in the criminal justice system until the conclusion of their cases.
192 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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.71 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.28 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.