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 5269132
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The first thing to say is that I am not refusing to include it. I would be unable to include it, because the Executive have already decided on and passed the sentencing Bill in its current form, and it is now in the late stages of drafting. I have indicated that I am happy to engage with the Member who raised the issue today, and, if a private Member's amendment on that were to come forward, I would discuss with him the limitations and give some suggestions about how that might be included. Sadly, however, that would deprive the Assembly of the right to fully scrutinise it and the public of the right to be consulted on it. We are all aware of how important that is. On the seriousness of the offences, I have mentioned that, as part of the sentencing Bill, we are looking at the introduction of an aggravated offence, which will focus on public-sector workers and those who are delivering a public duty or public service. That would be helpful. It is already an aggravating factor to attack a member of the emergency services, and that should be taken into account in sentencing. However, to be clear, sentencing guidance is not for the Department; it is for those in the Lady Chief Justice's sentencing group. They are the people who write the sentencing guidance based on case law and on the legislation that we pass, which usually sets a maxima. That allows them to interpret it for individual circumstances.
253 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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.90 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| 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.