Debate contribution: Sentencing Bill
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sentencing Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4981169
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Again, I do not want to give opinions on sentencing for crimes against women and girls. I can, however, tell you what will and will not be in the Bill. There will be a statement of the principles and purposes of sentencing; provision to allow the further use of community sentences; statutory starting points for life sentence tariff calculation; expansion and simplification of the current unduly lenient sentence referral provisions; creation of a new offence of assaulting those providing a service to the public or performing a public duty; creation of a statutory aggravator for vulnerable victims; and an increase in the maximum penalties for offences causing death by dangerous driving. There will also be measures to encourage the disclosure of the location of victims' remains, which I referred to earlier, that will be known as "Charlotte's law" and the provision of a statutory aggravator for hate crimes. Those measures are based on the 2016-17 review of sentencing, and considerable work has gone into getting the legislative proposals in place. In tandem with that, however, I plan to launch a further review of sentencing that may pick up on some of the issues that the Member has raised.
198 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 (0.70).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.70 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.28 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.13 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:43 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.