Debate contribution: Stalking Protection Orders
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Stalking Protection Orders
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348584
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There is a role for the PSNI in training, and we are happy to provide people with the resources — the materials — that they may need to provide information to officers. The operationalisation aspect of how that would done would be a matter for the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. When it comes to how the orders might be better used, the use of stalking protection orders by judges is one of the things that we are looking at. Use of the orders often becomes an onerous process for the PSNI that involves additional court proceedings, whereas, if the process can be as one with the original court proceedings, and the judge can reach a determination on the order, that may help to speed things up. We are looking at a number of options to make the orders more effective. If they are properly deployed, they can be useful. They remove some of the pressure on individual victims to seek out a non-molestation order or something similar, and they allow that protection to be court-endorsed, which means that the person involved knows that breaching the order would be a serious matter in their future treatment in the courts. There are things that we can do to improve use and roll-out and to raise awareness of the orders. A number of things that we brought forward in the previous mandate could be better used, but I recognise that the police have limited resources, and we are trying to cope with that, because it is a major challenge.
258 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | 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 | 0.78 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.17 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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.