Debate contribution: Ramming of Police Vehicles: South Armagh
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 22 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Ramming of Police Vehicles: South Armagh
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4484131
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Anyone who deliberately rams a police vehicle or assaults not only a police officer but any emergency service worker, be they police officers, doctors, nurses, paramedics, firemen or firewomen, commits a crime against those who are on the front line of protecting our communities. Such actions are unacceptable, and those responsible must face the full rigours of the justice system. However, such attacks cannot be used as a platform to justify or support any attempt to undermine an important policing initiative that was conceived in conjunction with the local community and sought to enhance engagement and cooperation while developing confidence levels and consent between the police and the local populace. Such an initiative came in the form of the south Armagh policing review. It was initiated in January 2020 over a six-month period by the then Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, and published in August 2021. It dealt with the policing arrangements in south Armagh. The terms of reference were wide-ranging and sought to:
"objectively assess the style, tone and accessibility of local policing and whether it was appropriately aligned to community expectations and need."
The review was conducted in the spirit of a partnership approach with the local community and its political representatives. I am sure that anyone who is interested in improving relationships and working practices between the Police Service and the local community will applaud that approach.
The review produced 50 recommendations, which sought to ensure that the:
"strategy, structure, systems and culture facilitate an increasingly visible, accessible, responsive policing model in South Armagh."
Such a model would be welcomed in all areas by all citizens who wish to see the delivery of a policing service in a constructive and inclusive partnership with the community at all levels.
I will give you an indication of the relevance of some of the key recommendations for the local community that were outlined in the review. One recommendation stated:
"An enhanced neighbourhood policing team should be established with increased hours of coverage to provide greater levels of visible policing and a dedicated focus on engagement."
Another recommendation was:
"to ensure that community impact considerations are central to planning and decision making processes at every stage"
— of policing activities. In addition:
"All non-local resources carrying out policing activities in South Armagh should be accountable to local management for the style and tone of delivery and patrol profile."
Finally:
"A cross border command and control protocol should be developed with a focus on the management of police pursuits."
To conclude, I quote from a statement made by Superintendent Norman Haslett, the district commander in the Newry, Mourne and Down area, which includes south Armagh, on 15 November last year:
"Since the publication of the South Armagh Policing Review in August 2021, we have made significant progress against the delivery of the review's recommendations, and, as a direct result, the visibility, accessibility and responsiveness of policing in the area has improved for all communities within the Slieve Gullion area. The health, safety, welfare and well-being of our officers and staff is a priority, and the criminal actions of a small number of people will not prevent us from delivering community policing".
528 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.58 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.20 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.15 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.