Debate contribution: Justice

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 10 February 2025.

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 4790842

Text

It is very clear that the court has indicated that, at this stage, it does not believe that the appropriate authority is the ombudsman's office. It is also clear that alternative structures are being created to investigate and, to a degree, adjudicate in matters that relate to legacy issues, of which the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) is one significant part. Whether it will have the lawful authority to do so remains to be seen, because its judgements may also be subject to judicial review in due course. The key is that, if an individual is accused of committing a crime, they have the right to a fair trial. That remains the case, whether they are a member of the Police Service or an ordinary member of the public, whatever role they may hold. If that is interfered with in any way by any action, the courts will, of course, be concerned about that, because, ultimately, it is for the courts to decide whether an individual is guilty. Whether that means that people can rule in general terms is a matter that is beyond me and will probably end up being determined by those courts.
Again, I draw the Member's attention to what the judgement did and did not do.
It did not strike down the wider parts of the report; it acknowledged that each of the reports was the product of detailed investigation and significant hard work by the ombudsman and her team of officers; and it clearly stated that it was not intended to undermine or cast doubt on the professionalism of the staff in relation to their investigatory work.
The Member will know that the genesis of the term "collusive behaviours" was in response to a previous court judgement where the allegation of collusion, which is a criminal offence, was made. It was not, in the end, accepted that the court would allow the ombudsman to reach that conclusion without a full trial. In this case, they have simply said that the ombudsman does not have the power to adjudicate on that. They have not struck down the rest of the report, and I caution Members about exceeding the vires of the judgement in their commentary around it.

374 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.12 (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 (0.76).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.04	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.03	No
Controversy escalation	0.06	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.76	Yes
Overall judgement	0.12	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.96
Reports or questions it	0.04
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.92
No identity-related subject	0.08
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 11:56 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.

Challenge this classification