Debate contribution: Speeding Up Justice: Bereaved Families
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
- Speeding Up Justice: Bereaved Families
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175633
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have just set out the work that we are doing on speeding up justice. One of the particular reasons that we are looking at, for example, changes in the jurisdiction of the courts, as well as more out-of-court disposals for lower level offences, is to ensure that court time at the High Court is reserved for the most serious of offences, which will allow us, hopefully, to move more swiftly. Committal reform, for example, has already delivered hugely for victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, whereby they do not have to give evidence potentially twice, which is a deterrent to people's coming forward. We have also used the remote evidence centre; there is a judge-led pilot there, which has domestic abuse contest cases heard. In the first tranche of eight cases that went through, all eight victims turned up and gave evidence, and all eight perpetrators were happy to concede guilt at the outset, so, just by the victims being there and having the confidence to come to court, the perpetrators pled guilty. We have seen that repeated. In domestic abuse contest cases where victims are able to give remote evidence, the success rate is well over 90% conviction. There are things that we are doing that will speed up justice and also make the process better. Finally, every domestic homicide is a tragedy.
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 (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.51 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.27 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.