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 5528485
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for raising the issue. I recognise how distressing it is for victims to listen to good-character references for a perpetrator who has harmed them and to feel that those references could influence the outcome of the trial or of sentencing, given that character references can play a part in both. My preference would be to end or to limit the use of good-character references in certain categories of offending, particularly domestic abuse and sexual crime. Legally complex issues are involved, so careful policy development and consultation are required to ensure that any resultant legislation is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the article 6 rights of the defendant. I have therefore made the issue part of the Department's review of sentencing policy with a view to legislating in the next mandate. However, if a simple legislative change that could have an impact in this space were to be identified, I would not rule out using the victims and witnesses of crime Bill as a potential vehicle for it. Above all, I encourage everyone to exercise personal responsibility when it comes to providing character references for use by a court, particularly in cases of domestic abuse and sexual offending, where the creation of a good character in the public eye is often part of the offending profile.
224 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.63 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.24 |
| 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 15:36 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.