Debate contribution: Action to End Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Action to End Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666181
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, it would not be appropriate for me or my Department to engage directly with the Director of Public Prosecutions or the judiciary on any specific sentence, because they are completely impartial and independent of the Department and it is right that they should be. However, at the criminal justice board, for example, we discuss sentence leniency and the perception that that creates in the community and the fact that people often feel frustrated that, having managed to get someone convicted for a serious offence, they find that the sentence does not appear to match the crime. We have that conversation. There are already powers for the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against a sentence on the basis of leniency.
Those powers are slightly convoluted and complex, so something that I hope to do in one of my Bills in this mandate is simplify and expand the list of sentences that can be appealed for leniency in order to make that process much easier.
165 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: 0.04 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.52 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.32 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:37 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.