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 5601923
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. I will clarify. For any criminal case, the standard of proof is that it must be beyond reasonable doubt — the standard is way up high — whereas, for a misconduct case, it is beyond the balance of probabilities, which could be 50% plus one or even 50·1%. There is a different standard. In England, most cases in which an officer is brought back for a hearing after they have retired are cases where there has not been a crime, because then victims can get accountability. That has been going on for some time in England, and we should have implemented it some time ago. I suggest that we should use our existing powers more when an officer is convicted of a crime. The Policing Board has full forfeiture powers over pensions, although that power is rarely used. A couple of years ago, a police officer was convicted of perverting the course of justice in relation to the case of an innocent man who was beaten to death by a loyalist mob in Portadown. The person who stood up in front of the camera and said that that officer's pension should be taken away was me — the person who is often accused of seeing things only from the police's point of view.
214 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: 0.11 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.45 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.37 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.15 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
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.