Debate contribution: Victims and Witnesses of Crime Strategy 2025-2030
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
- Victims and Witnesses of Crime Strategy 2025-2030
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4981249
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Three years ago, I established a new role of Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime for Northern Ireland. The objective of the role was to give a voice to victims of crime, promote their rights under the Victim Charter and raise their issues with government and criminal justice organisations. I was also keen that that commissioner would drive forward system improvements for victims of crime and contribute to more cohesive, coordinated and victim-centred criminal justice approaches. I am grateful to Geraldine Hanna for all that she has achieved during her time in office thus far. She has continued to identify and highlight issues that affect victims and to effect real change for victims and witnesses in the system. The commissioner designate has completed and published her annual report and will produce her second annual report in the coming weeks.
The work that she has done on victims' engagement; research; policy influence; disclosure compliance; issues such as access to public galleries in courts and remote evidence centres; developing the statutory role for the Commissioner for Victims; awareness raising; media; and Victim Charter compliance has made a positive contribution to the justice system and to victims and witnesses in particular in Northern Ireland.
201 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.52 | No |
| 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 | 0.72 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.17 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
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.