Debate contribution: Domestic Homicide Review: Naming Protocol
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Domestic Homicide Review: Naming Protocol
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5269104
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I understand the distress that families can feel when a pseudonym is used in a domestic homicide review (DHR) rather than the real name of the perpetrator who killed their loved one, particularly when the family of the victim have waived their right to anonymity. However, the fundamental purpose of a DHR is to learn from domestic abuse deaths so that agencies can strengthen their responses to domestic abuse victims and their children, thereby reducing the risk of future incidents. The DHR is not undertaken as a means to hold a perpetrator accountable; that is a matter for the courts, and there is no additional value to be derived in identifying learning in a DHR report by naming perpetrators. Domestic homicide reviews in Northern Ireland are established in statute and underpinned by the 'Multi-Agency Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews', which all participants are required to follow. The guidance makes it clear that reports must be anonymised as far as possible. Even where a family waives its right to anonymity and where the courts have found a perpetrator guilty, there is a legal obligation to balance the data protection rights of any living individual included in the DHR. The situation is similar in other jurisdictions. For example, in England and Wales, the vast majority of DHRs are pseudonymised, and, on occasions when families of victims have waived their right to anonymity, a pseudonym has still been used for the perpetrator.
242 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: 0.04 (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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.65 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.26 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:03 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.