Debate contribution: Criminal Justice System: Failure to Transform
Debate contribution by Mr Maurice Bradley on .
- MLA
- Mr Maurice Bradley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Criminal Justice System: Failure to Transform
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5157650
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try my best not to take the full 10 minutes. It has been a lively debate, and sometimes a wee bit fractious, but that is the nature of politics. I return to where we began: the uncomfortable truth that, 15 years after the devolution of policing and justice powers, Northern Ireland's criminal justice system remains mired in the same systemic failures that we were promised would be fixed. The Criminal Justice Inspection's report of November 2024 could not have been more stark. Its verdict is that there has been "limited improvement". Those two words capture a decade and a half of drift. There has been limited improvement in performance, outcomes and the lived experience of victims, witnesses and staff alike. If that is the best that we can offer after countless reviews, strategies and transformation programmes, something deep in the system is badly broken. We have been told again that leadership is lacking, that strategic vision is missing, and that siloed working, overlapping work streams and fragmented digital investments have produced a justice system that is inefficient, inconsistent and, too often, unjust. I give credit to the Minister for saying that her Department is vastly underfunded, as is the PSNI. That is a matter for the Executive as a whole. However, the Audit Office warned us in 2018, and CJINI warned us again in 2024. The pattern repeats: recommendations are made and strategies are launched, but outcomes remain unchanged. Transformation has become a slogan, rather than a standard. In closing, I echo the questions that still demand clear answers: where is the shared vision? When will a fully aligned, cross-sectoral strategy be published, with measurable goals and timelines? When will the Assembly and the public see not just promises —?
Yes.
I thank the Member for that intervention. That is —.
I thank the Minister for answering the question that Mr Burrows asked me. That was very kind.
I thank the Member for that intervention. I mentioned that that vision needs to be produced. We all need to see it. We look forward to it. Finally, I call on the Minister to make three firm commitments before the year's end: publish the criminal justice vision and digital strategy; align all justice partners, including the PSNI and the legal profession, under a single accountable framework; and centre every reform on victims, witnesses and public confidence, not as an afterthought but as the very test of success. Members, transformation cannot be another word for delay. Justice cannot be something that we continually promise but never deliver. The public, and especially victims of crime, deserve better. I commend the motion to the House.
447 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.90 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.08 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:26 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.