Debate contribution: Court Proceedings: Recording and Broadcasting Proposals
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
- Court Proceedings: Recording and Broadcasting Proposals
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4981241
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I reassure Members that I have no intention of our courts being opened up to broadcasting in the way that, for example, has happened in the US, where they are a televisual spectacular as opposed to being conducted in the interests of justice. What we are talking about is not a proposal that would allow the recording or filming of victims, witnesses, parties to proceedings, jurors, members of the public or court staff. The proposal that we are consulting on is to give the Department the power to make secondary legislation, subject to the Lady Chief Justice's agreement, that would prescribe the proceedings and the particular aspect of them of which broadcasting would be permitted. Even in those circumstances, the decision on filming in a particular case would rest with the judge hearing it. Recording by the broadcaster would have to be in accordance with the conditions imposed by that judge. Further, the judge would be able to direct that filming is not allowed in the interest of justice or to prevent undue prejudice. In considering any application from broadcasters to film, the judge would take into account any reporting restrictions in place to protect victims and witnesses. If filming takes place, it would be incumbent on the broadcaster not to breach those restrictions, including any entitlement that there may be to anonymity.
223 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: 0.03 (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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:45 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.