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 4563924
Read the official Assembly record
Text
No. I do not agree that there has been a lack of systemic reform by my Department, quite the contrary. In the previous mandate, we led the way on the domestic abuse offence, legislating on domestic abuse and putting forward the need for training for police officers in that legislation. That training is ongoing. That is not, in any way, to answer for the PSNI and its role, which is something that, I am sure, the Member's colleagues will take up through the Policing Board, where the Chief Constable can be questioned about policing response. It is disappointing when people have negative experiences, which is why I spend a considerable amount of my time listening to victims of domestic and sexual violence and other crimes. I do that so that I can be clear that the pathway that we have plotted is the one that is followed in real time. That is often not the case, and only some of that is down to resourcing. A significant role for my Department is to provide leadership, and we have not failed to show that leadership, supporting victims and witnesses, opening remote evidence centres and offering the support that we offer to vulnerable victims and witnesses. At the end of the day, I guess that the question is this: do people feel, at the point of sentencing, that they have got what they wanted? Unfortunately, that is often not the case.
239 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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.67 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.21 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.