Debate contribution: Compassionate Temporary Release from Prison
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Compassionate Temporary Release from Prison
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5741943
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is fairly clear at this stage of the questions that some people want to make this a political football. References to people being released historically — murderers and so on — have nothing to do with compassionate temporary release. It is just another political jibe in the Chamber that, of course, we have come to expect, as is the suggestion that I am personally responsible for the actions of any prisoner, let alone one who is illegally at large. That is a really serious thing for the Member to suggest. I caution him. Does that mean that, if someone in our schools commits a crime, it is Paul Givan's fault? If somebody in the community commits a crime, is it Gordon Lyons's fault? That is a nonsense argument. Such decisions are not signed off at ministerial level. I have already told Members of the House that I intend to look at the chaperoning issue specifically. Such things are not happening all the time or every couple of minutes. I am working with Prison Service on what we can do in the short term and looking to the review to give us more indication of what we can do in the longer term. However, politicisation — turning the issue into a political football and trying to score capital — is not the way to show that you care either about the Kelly family or, indeed, the safety of the public. Being respectful and responsible in your remarks would demonstrate that much better.
First, I think that victims' rights should always take precedence over the rights of perpetrators, and I have been clear about that throughout my tenure as Justice Minister, whether that is through ensuring that people have been able to read their victim impact statements to the courts, through the work that we are doing on the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter or through the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill that I have introduced to the House to be dealt with in this mandate. Victims' rights are always the most important thing. I remind the Member that, even if we were to leave the ECHR, that would not leave us in a vacuum where human rights are up for debate and it is a free-for-all. The ECHR codifies basic human rights. I do not know what kind of society people want to live in, but I want to live in one that is governed by fairness, respect and human rights, and that includes for those in our prisons. A wiser person than me once said, "If you want to know the state of a society, look at the state of its prisons". I want to ensure that, when people look at Northern Ireland, our society and our prisons, they see people being treated with compassion and dignity while being robustly challenged on their behaviours and confined for the protection of the public.
The answers to those two questions, in short, are this: yes, we had counsel and a solicitor in the court; and, no, there was no one from the Department of Justice or Prison Service in the court. Again, that would not be unusual. There was communication between DSO and Prison Service during the judicial review, but that did not include the offer to retake the decision.
I acknowledge that it is a frightening time not just for people in Foyle but for people in Donegal and in the border counties more generally, who will be concerned that Gary Anderson may have absconded across the border. The police have been in touch with their Garda Síochána counterparts to alert them to the risk and to any actions that they may need to take to ensure that he is returned to custody as quickly as possible. I agree that there should be no no-go areas when it comes to justice. I say this, however: I am not, on a point of principle, going to send pretty much defenceless prison officers into areas where they may be shot. I am not going to do that. I would rather that the prisoner stay in prison, if that is the only option. I say that clearly and openly today. That, for me, is the substantive choice that was made. It was not made by me, nor was it made by Prison Service.
First, the Member, as always, knows everything. I do not know why we need a Civil Service, a judiciary, a court system or anything else, because the Member can do it all single-handedly and is an expert on absolutely everything. He can question my competence from here to eternity, but the reality is that my competence is not being questioned by those who work most closely with me and see the job that I do. Others judge their competence against how many TikToks they can issue over a weekend. We do not do that, because the job that I have to do as Justice Minister is a serious one. My job when communicating is not to whip up fear and get likes on social media but to reassure the public and to make sure that the House is informed at the appropriate juncture. I therefore wanted to be sure of my facts before we put anything else into the public domain. Every time that we put something into the public domain that then needs to be changed, altered, corrected or developed, that creates more stress for the victims in the case. As I said, when I saw the judgement on Friday, it did not take Mr Burrows on social media to motivate me to do work. I immediately commissioned an urgent review from the director-general of the Prison Service in order to bottom out what had happened. I immediately put a press release on hold against query, because I did not want to release anything before coming to the Chamber, and I wrote to the Speaker. If the Speaker's Office so wishes, it can confirm that I did so. It was important to me that I come to the Chamber, be transparent and be held accountable by the House. On what transpired over the weekend, it was not until Sunday morning, when my officials were finally able to listen to the entire proceedings, that we got the clarity that was needed. Mr Burrows does not need clarity to make wild allegations on social media, but I need clarity if I am going to make statements in the House. I seek clarity first, then I come and make my comments. That is how I will continue to do my job, because that is required of me under the ministerial code.
The judgement that we had in front of us last week and on which we based the information that I put before the House was the judgement that, I said, Members could look up. It included no reference to the opportunity for us to review. That became apparent only when the full transcript of the judgement remarks was available, and the judge rightly questioned why we had declined the opportunity to do so. You can imagine the shock in Prison Service: it was never offered the opportunity to do so, so it did not know that that offer was made in the court; that was not conveyed to Prison Service. I have already said that that is a procedural failing. DSO has accepted that it is a procedural failing. We are now trying to get the whole picture so that we can give full transparency, ensure that there is accountability and ensure that it does not happen again. With respect to tone, Members come to the House and do not consider tone. When I came to the House, my tone was entirely reasonable. However, when my integrity is constantly questioned; when I am accused of lying; when I am accused of being incompetent; when I am accused of putting and raising the rights of prisoners over the rights of victims on a day like today — I did not do that; I responded to a question that I was asked — then , yes, I will sound vexed. I sound vexed because this matters. This matters to me. It is not just another performance piece in the Chamber. I care about the impact that it has had on the family. I care about the concerns that Julie Middleton spoke about on behalf of her constituents. This has vexed me, so, if my tone perhaps sounds slightly more stringent than usual, it is because I find it unthinkable that anyone in the Chamber who has known me for as long as they have would think that I would not care about it.
To be absolutely clear, no vision statement written on a piece of paper would have prevented what happened last weekend with Gary Anderson. It simply would not. There are not multiple failings of this kind. The Member always insists that that is the case. A very small number of prisoners go unlawfully at large. Over recent years, that number has been quite small. A lot of work is done when Prison Service makes the decisions around whether people should be released. It is not a repetitive thing. Lots of other people are released for different reasons and return to custody, but I will not get into that. The issue of the criminal justice vision has taken somewhat longer than what we anticipated. That is not because we have different visions but because my Department does not have the resources to fully move it on when we are also trying to deliver legislation, improve communications with victims, deliver better for witnesses in the system, ensure the safety of the public and increase police numbers.
Yes, two years. I hear the Member chuntering behind me. I know that it has been two years, but, of all the priorities in the Department, writing a vision down on a piece of paper is, perhaps, not the main one, particularly not in the past few weeks. However, given the scale and significance of our ambition around criminal justice, we have been taking that work forward, albeit not as speedily as I would have wished. It did not produce something that, stakeholders felt, was appropriate when we consulted. That has led to further engagement with stakeholders, and we have had to revise that vision considerably. While the vision is critical to setting direction and tone, implementation is more critical. Significant work is going on across the justice system outwith the vision work that will help to drive the focus on victims. The Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill is just one tangible example, and it is more tangible than a simple statement on paper.
1,790 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.