Debate contribution: Maximum Sentences: Proposed Increases
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Maximum Sentences: Proposed Increases
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046857
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are looking at proposals in the offence of causing or allowing the death of, or serious physical harm to, a child or vulnerable adult. The offence addresses cases where it is clear that a child or vulnerable adult has suffered serious harm or death but it is impossible to prove which household member was directly responsible for it. The offence could also be when one person caused the death or serious harm and another allowed it by failing to act to prevent it when they had a duty to protect the victim from harm. In such cases, both perpetrators could be charged under the proposed law. The current maximum sentence in Northern Ireland is 14 years for cases involving death and 10 years for those involving serious harm, but in England and Wales, the maximum sentence was increased in 2022 to life for causing death and 14 years for causing serious harm. At the moment, we are consulting on whether the sentences in Northern Ireland are adequate or whether they should be increased in line with those in England and Wales. We are also inviting opinions on whether we should adopt a similar approach to that in England and Wales, with the aim of providing consistency across jurisdictions. We want to ensure that the courts have maximum flexibility in applying sentences in what are horrific cases.
227 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | 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 | 0.63 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.18 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.13 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:53 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.