Debate contribution: Harper’s Law: Sentencing Bill
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
- Harper’s Law: Sentencing Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5269128
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Ultimately, the sentencing that is available for manslaughter includes a life sentence, and the decision on what is handed down in any individual case is up to the judiciary, which is independent and has to assess all elements of a case, such as whether there was intent and whether the act actually took place. That decision will always have discretion. Even were we to introduce Harper's law, we would have to introduce it in a way that meant that it had exceptions, because it would still have to allow for judicial independence and discretion. That is the nature of the system, and it is important that we respect it. I am clear about this: no police officer doing any police work should face any assault when they are out helping the public. When you attack a police officer, you are attacking not just an individual but a whole community that is no longer able to be served by that officer. You are draining resources from the PSNI at a time when it needs them, and you are disrespecting someone who is putting themselves on the front line to keep other people safe.
192 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: 0.05 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.86 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.