Debate contribution: Adult Restorative Justice
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
- Adult Restorative Justice
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5269140
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have leant very heavily on their expertise, and it is important to note that they were part of the panel that we engaged with when designing the system. Much of their work is the same as the work that they will do post-accreditation, but other organisations and individuals can offer restorative practice. There is also the opportunity for the organisations already engaged in restorative justice to upskill their workforce and individual practitioners and, hopefully, assist us in delivering restorative practice. Restorative justice will still be delivered by community-based, accredited practitioners using the same values, principles and practice standards that underpin it in the community. As evidenced by youth conferencing, however, the criminal justice system gives access to more victims of crime, who will be offered the opportunity to participate in restorative justice. That is in line with the directive on victims' rights, but it also requires us to ensure that there is a pathway, particularly for the most complex cases, which many restorative practitioners will not have had an opportunity to engage with.
174 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.90 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.