Debate contribution: Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528481
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Bill is focused on a small number of very significant measures that will have the most impact on victims and witnesses of crime in order to improve their experience of the criminal justice system. That is a priority for me and something that, I know, partner organisations are also keen to progress. The provisions, which will make a real difference to victims, include a right of victims in serious sexual offence cases to make representations at specified pretrial application hearings, with the benefit of independent legal representation to do so, and improvements to the third-party material disclosure process. Victims of hate crime offences will automatically be eligible for special measures, and the accused will be prohibited from cross-examining them. Officials are working with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to support the drafting of the Bill, which I plan to introduce before the summer recess, subject, of course, to Executive and Assembly approval.
155 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 (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.71 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.15 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:36 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.