Debate contribution: Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Service
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5224689
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Any additional delay obviously impacts on the justice system, not only on victims and witnesses but on defendants, many of whom are being held on remand, which means that there will be a knock-on impact on our prison system. Some 132 cases were listed to be heard across the Crown Court today. In light of the decision emerging late yesterday afternoon, they have not been impacted on by the withdrawal of service. The specific actions being taken today have varied. At the moment, it seems that only new cases are not being taken in the action, but that will clearly have an impact down the line. The specific actions being taken by CBA members have varied somewhat since the withdrawal of service commenced last December. Since March, members have refused to take new instructions in murder and serious sex offence cases, but, as I said, that has now been extended to all Crown Court cases with effect from today. That puts more stress on the criminal justice system and court business, and it wastes scarce resources. It is time that the Criminal Bar Association made its intentions clear. I have worked with the solicitors' criminal Bar, with the Law Society and, indeed, with the Bar Council more generally to address some of the genuine issues that they have. I am willing to do that with the criminal Bar, but there has to be some sense of putting victims back at the heart of the discussions that we are having and of ensuring that we can do so while still providing the service for which people rightly seek to be paid.
270 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:42 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.