Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601907
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is important because we are talking about legislation, so let us separate a couple of issues. Where there is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against a police officer, that is unaffected by the amendment, because it is a completely separate matter. Police officers should be treated the same as anyone else. Any police officer who commits a crime should be treated like any other member of the public, except that they should get an exemplary sentence, because they have abused their uniform. I have no difficulty with saying that right is right and wrong is wrong. The issue here is that it would be a misconduct matter, and that can be open to the ombudsman's interpretation, because the ombudsman has created an entire class of wrongdoing called "collusive behaviour". I therefore need to get reassurance that I will not open up another front for retired police officers —
I will in one second. I know a police officer, whom I spoke to only yesterday, who has 40-odd years' service and who served during the Troubles. If someone were to say, "Forty years ago, I think, you were involved in collusive behaviour", and the PPS said, "There's nothing to see here" but the ombudsman said, "I want to see you brought back in front of a hearing", the Chief Constable would feel under pressure for that to happen. I just want to make sure that that cannot happen. We cannot have another front in the legacy battle. I will take the intervention.
254 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: 0.29 (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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.87).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.20 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.29 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.95 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:51 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.