Debate contribution: Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5448428
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the engagement on this. The recording of hate incidents falls to the PSNI, but it would not affect only hate incidents; it would affect all reports of potential incidents that have taken place. Whilst I understand the point that the Member makes about how long people's data can be held — it is well made, but it is something that we are dealing with separately — there is a fundamental issue relating to the fact that some people will behave in ways that mean that they cannot be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence or that do not meet the criminal threshold but can often be an indicator of other behaviours. Serial sex offenders, for example, may often start with low-level indicators. If those are recorded and held, a pattern may emerge, and losing that information because it falls short of the criminal would be dangerous. There is a balance to be struck, and I will be interested to engage with the Committee and the Member on that as we go through the process.
177 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: 0.05 (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 (0.97).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.83 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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.