Debate contribution: Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5284972
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I send my condolences to all families across Northern Ireland who have been impacted on by road collisions and road traffic accidents. They are simply terrible events for the families who have to go through them, and they often live with the consequences for years to come. As other Members have reflected, immediate coverage and distressing images being shared on a range of online platforms can severely compound their loss. My colleague Paul mentioned an example. As he was talking, I thought about the fact that I have witnessed only one road traffic accident. I was a special adviser to a Minister at the time. It all came back to me as Paul was speaking. We came across a fairly bad RTA that had just happened. A husband and his daughter were in one car, and another car was involved. The young girl was bleeding fairly badly and trapped in the car. We phoned 999; we were the first on the scene. The Fire and Rescue Service and the Ambulance Service came out and so forth. I would never think of photographing or videoing that sort of thing. We need to get the message out that, in that situation, phones are useful for one thing, which is to phone the emergency services. Caoimhe was 23 when she passed away. Her family, as they told their loved ones, were slower than social media, which is so speedy these days, and her name was shared online by strangers. I cannot imagine the pain that that caused the family. I acknowledge Caoimhe's family, who are here today. That singular act is so immeasurably cruel and heartless. I want to clarify one aspect. In answer to a question from Cathal Boylan, the Justice Minister — I am happy to give her the Floor if she wishes to respond to this, or she can answer me when she is summing up — said:
"The decision to introduce legislation to prohibit the sharing of photos of road traffic collisions would be a matter for the Department for Infrastructure, which has primary responsibility for road safety policy within the Executive."
I am happy that the Justice Minister is here. Is there a reason that she is here, rather than the Infrastructure Minister, if the Infrastructure Minister holds the vires? I will give her the Floor if she wants.
That is great; thank you very much. At this point, I pause to thank the Justice Minister and the Infrastructure Minister for meeting a constituent of mine whom I will come to in a second. I lost a constituent called Jaidyn Rice on 8 July. She was just 16 at the time of her death. She had a bright future ahead of her; she wanted to join the army. A man has subsequently been charged with causing death through dangerous driving, causing death while driving without a licence and causing death while driving without insurance. I thank the Justice Minister and the Infrastructure Minister for meeting Elaine and Judith, Jaidyn's mum and grandmother, who are creating a legacy for Jaidyn by trying to protect other pedestrians in the future and keep them safe. What a legacy that would be. I pay tribute to Patsy for proposing the motion. As he mentioned, legislation exists in Germany, where photographing or recording an incident or victims is treated as a crime. This party fully supports the introduction of such legislation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Christmas spirit has finally descended on this place, because we will send a united message today that capturing or distributing distressing footage of fatal or critical road accidents is disgraceful and should be made illegal. My party supports the motion. We would like to see, as the Justice Minister has just mentioned, quick and firm coordination between Justice and Infrastructure, if the vires lies with it, which seems to be the case. As Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I will raise the issue with the Infrastructure Minister. I have spoken so far as DUP lead on infrastructure, but I think that I can get away with saying, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, that we will raise the matter with the Minister and see what the Committee can do to get some traction on Caoimhe's law.
709 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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:11 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.