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 4511522
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, that was not consulted on in the sentencing review that was undertaken. Most sentencing in Northern Ireland is based on guideline cases and sentencing guidelines, which are a matter for the judiciary, not the Department. We have limited scope, other than in legislation, to set maximums; the rest is left to judicial discretion. What we have been able to do — I hope that it has shifted the dial with regard to confidence in the justice system in these matters — is work with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the judiciary and, in particular, the PSNI on our response to domestic and sexual violence and violence against women and girls. I hope that the strategy that will be laid out on behalf of the Executive in the coming days will further reinforce the fact that the Executive take a no-tolerance approach to violence against women and girls. I hope that that is a message that will be well received by the judiciary.
163 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: 0.05 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.64 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.35 |
| 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 10:58 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.