Debate contribution: Criminal Justice: Victim Confidence
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Justice: Victim Confidence
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563920
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am grateful to the commissioner designate for engaging with victims of crime and seeking feedback on their experience of the criminal justice system. It is essential that victims feel confident that, when they report a crime, they will have their case investigated and prosecuted, where there is evidence to support a prosecution, and that they will be treated appropriately and sensitively throughout the system. Across the criminal justice system, a lot of work has been progressed to improve the experiences of and support for victims of crime and to ensure that they receive the services that they are entitled to under the Victim Charter. That includes ensuring that victims can avail themselves of emotional support when giving evidence, which the Department funds through Victim Support NI and the NSPCC. My Department allocates funding of around £1·8 million a year for the provision of support services to victims and witnesses through Victim Support and the NSPCC's young witness service. I will say this, however: if we had more resource, first, the justice system would speed up; secondly, people would get a resolution to their case much more quickly; and, thirdly, we would be able to provide a better service, because it is often changes made at the last minute as a result of people not being fully prepared that cause delay. All those things impact on people's view of the system. There is a huge challenge ahead, if we are to ensure that our justice system improves. It will require investment, and I have been asking for that investment for some time.
262 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.90 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:12 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.