Debate contribution: Victims/Perpetrators: Court Support
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Victims/Perpetrators: Court Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175547
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We provide over £2·4 million of funding for the general work that we do to support victims, and to ensure that victims and witnesses of crime can access the support services that they need. Those services are delivered by Victim Support NI and the NSPCC's young witness service. Through the witness support services, victims and witnesses get emotional support, information and practical assistance, which helps them to give their best evidence. It includes opportunities to visit court before giving evidence; an explanation of the court process; accompanying the victim or witness into the courtroom, live-link room or remote evidence centre; and offering the opportunity to talk to someone when the case has ended. In addition, for those who are victims of specific sexual offences, we have sexual offences legal advisers and child sexual offences legal advisers, who can give pre-court and pre-trial legal advice to victims to help to guide them through the many requests that they will face around issues such as disclosure.
164 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).
- 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 | 0.56 | No |
| 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 | 0.46 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.23 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:27 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.