Debate contribution: Sentencing Bill: Legislative Changes
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sentencing Bill: Legislative Changes
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511514
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is important, and it is something that I, too, would like to see. A difficulty that we have is limited resource in the Department and in the Office of the Legislative Counsel for drafting commitments. There is also a challenge in the development of policy in the area. For example, when it comes to the issue of what would be filmed in court, the current view of the Lady Chief Justice is that it would be in relation to Court of Appeal judgements and rulings. However, you will be aware that we saw in England recently, very powerfully, that sentencing remarks are also filmed there. Whilst the pilot looked only at Court of Appeal judgements and rulings, we would want to take a more holistic approach. We would not want to repeal the current rule, which says that all filming in a court is illegal, without knowing particularly the detail of what needs to be done. One option that I had explored to expedite this is that we could put the repeal, if you like, on ice in primary legislation, as well as taking regulation powers, but only commence it at the point where the regulations were developed and then engage with the sector on that basis. I was advised that that was perhaps not good practice in legislation, which is why we did not proceed down that route, but there may be some things that we can do, even over the course of this mandate, certainly to develop the policy to support that change.
256 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: 0.02 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:58 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.