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 5601915
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are not in a situation like that in England and Wales. My word, legacy has become an industry in itself here, and, by the way, it is only a small group of solicitors and barristers who really seem to profit from it. It is a fair point that what is designed to deal with police misconduct and the ability to bring back an officer in order to deal with an allegation after they have retired does should become another vehicle for legacy. We have activism in this country. When the Office of the Police Ombudsman was first established almost 30 years ago, there was no suggestion that it would even look at legacy cases from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The thought was that the Police Ombudsman would check police conduct today. That activism opened up the ability of the ombudsman to look into cases from 30 years before the ombudsman's office was conceived. It is important. The next time that the Minister is on her feet, I ask that she make it clear that the regulations will absolutely contain some timeline that means that we do not go back 30 years or 40 years. To do so would be preposterous. Given that what we are dealing with here is not crime but misconduct, it would be anathema to bring someone in front of a panel for a misconduct hearing 40 years after an alleged incident. I just want to get that clarified.
I would love to, yes.
249 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: 0.14 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.