Debate contribution: Justice
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Question for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- Justice
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790800
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am aware of the High Court judgement and will consider it and any implications that it might have in due course. However, I remind the Assembly that the Police Ombudsman operates independently of the Minister of Justice and of the Department. The ombudsman's office carries out a vital role in investigating complaints in regard to the conduct of police officers. I note that the judgement acknowledged that each of the reports was the product of detailed investigation and significant hard work by the ombudsman and her team of officers. The judgement also clearly states that it is not intended to undermine or cast doubt upon the professionalism of the staff in relation to their investigatory work.
There is no intent on my part to hide behind anything or anyone, nor would the ombudsman seek to hide behind me. The ombudsman is an appointee of the Executive Office. She is a corporation sole, and that is a different structure to pretty much any other public appointment that we deal with. As I noted, I want to take time to consider that lengthy and complex judgement and give the issues that it raised some thought. The Member is, of course, right that it comes on the back of a prior judgement of a previous ombudsman in relation to language that was used in their reports and to which the current ombudsman then responded. The ombudsman, however, is independent of the Minister of Justice. Those are the facts, however uncomfortable they may be for Members.
I have had the opportunity to very briefly read through the judgement, although I want to do that a few more times before I comment on its detail. It is clear that it was not striking down the entire report, but it said that, in making determinations, the power of the ombudsman's office had been exceeded. The ombudsman will now require time to consider and reflect on that finding by the courts, as will the Department of Justice, in order that we are able to reach the right conclusions. However, to be clear, the judgement has not struck down the statements in question, and how the ombudsman chooses to respond to the court judgement is a matter for her and her alone to consider.
With any court judgement, that is always an option that is available to the person about whom the judgement has been made. It would not be appropriate for me to seek to influence the ombudsman or her office in that regard. She does, of course, reserve the right, if she wishes to do so, to appeal the judgement. However, I have no reason to believe, either way, that her decision has been taken at this stage, and I imagine that she will want to take time to reflect on the totality of the judgement.
471 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: 0.07 (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 (0.98).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.33 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.63 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.35 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:56 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.