Debate contribution: Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563944
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On 19 September 2024, my Department issued letters to 12 individuals to advise them that their convictions had been quashed by the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024. We believe that, in total, about 116 convictions have been quashed to date. That will enable those individuals to receive their financial redress. Further to those letters, the Department is coordinating the process of updating criminal records databases to reflect the quashing of the convictions. The individuals will receive a further letter once that process has been completed. Work is ongoing to review the convictions of other individuals who may be within the scope of the Act. I encourage anyone who believes that they have a conviction for a relevant offence but has not received a letter to date to contact my Department to ensure that an assessment of their conviction is undertaken. Obviously, the Act will not undo the harm and distress that was caused, but I hope that it will go some way towards lifting the burden on those affected.
171 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: 0.02 (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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.47 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| 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 11:12 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.