Debate contribution: Journalists: PSNI Surveillance
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Journalists: PSNI Surveillance
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4490897
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I very much share the concerns that have been raised more widely about the routine surveillance of journalists and lawyers. Journalism is not a crime, and a free press is critical to having a free society. Similarly, solicitor and client privilege is essential if we are to have an effective justice system that is trusted by the public. I have spoken to the Chief Constable and understand that a further report is due to be presented in June to the Policing Board in conjunction with our human rights adviser. The Chief Constable is taking the matter incredibly seriously, as rightly he should, and is considering other mechanisms to provide reassurance. As the Member will be aware, the PSNI is operationally independent from my Department but accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, so it is important for me to allow the Policing Board the opportunity to explore the issues thoroughly with the PSNI in the first instance. I am also aware that some of the allegations in part relate to the scrutiny of security matters, which is an excepted matter and, as such, falls to the Secretary of State, with whom I also intend to engage on the issue.
200 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: 0.04 (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 (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.93 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:21 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.