Debate contribution: Domestic Homicide Reviews: Suicide
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Domestic Homicide Reviews: Suicide
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453189
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Twenty-eight domestic homicide reviews have been commissioned, and seven have been completed and published on the DOJ website. Learning from those has driven significant improvements across agencies. The Department continues to embed that learning in its practice. In response to identified learning, we have also delivered public awareness campaigns on things such as non-fatal strangulation, aligned with the commencement of the new offence. That included a three-week TV campaign, a new nidirect information page and engagement with victims' groups during its development. There has also been an increased emphasis on promoting the domestic violence and abuse disclosure scheme (DVADS). The PSNI and my Department now routinely include information about the scheme in domestic abuse-related media releases. As a key safeguarding mechanism, DVADS supports individuals to make informed decisions about relationships, and the Department takes every opportunity to make people aware of it. Work is ongoing to replace the multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC) with a new perpetrator-focused arrangement, and there has been increased investment in behaviour change programmes. As part of the review process, we are looking very carefully at the right time to include within its remit suicide that has been driven by domestic homicide and at the resources that would be required.
204 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 (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.78 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.74 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:03 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.