Member's statement: Police Ombudsman: Conduct
Member's statement by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 December 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Police Ombudsman: Conduct
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5284139
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I address a matter of immense public interest. There are no outstanding criminal proceedings in relation to this matter. The office of Police Ombudsman is one of the most significant in Northern Ireland. The ombudsman exercises vast powers, is paid a vast salary, has ongoing access to top-secret material, investigates the most serious complaints against police officers and issues legacy reports to this day. Following an incident at Marie Anderson's house on the 22 to 23 September, the West Midlands Police Service conducted a lengthy police investigation. It submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for the offences of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. On 9 October this year, the PPS determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, and Ms Anderson is, as a matter of law, innocent. However, serious questions about conduct remain. Shortly after the incident, the media asked the Department of Justice and the ombudsman organisation whether Ms Anderson had tendered her resignation after the incident. They refused to answer. I can now report that Ms Anderson tendered her resignation on 24 September 2023 at 9.38 pm to the permanent secretary at the Department of Justice. Within one hour, the DOJ permanent secretary had said that the resignation would be parked and no action would be taken. I want to know who was involved in making that decision. Was there any political involvement? Why was such a decision made in such rushed way on a Sunday night? That decision is hugely consequential, because the Police Ombudsman has been, off and on, absent from work for a significant period. There has been much speculation about the inability to suspend the Police Ombudsman, yet there was an opportunity to take that resignation right at the outset of the incident. There are further concerns. There is clear and unchallenged evidence that the Police Ombudsman, during the incident at her home and in the days after, discouraged a member of her own staff from providing a statement to the Police Service about a live criminal investigation and that she divulged confidential information about an ombudsman investigation to a family member, who then confronted a third party with that information. Those are serious issues, which pose serious concerns about the integrity, fitness for office and security clearance of the Police Ombudsman, but we cannot get any answers. Last year, I revealed that there were no powers to suspend an ombudsman, even if they were charged with murder. If they were out on bail, they could walk into their office. Too many people have been asleep at the wheel for too long in relation to the ombudsman's office. I call on the Executive Office and the Justice Minister to urgently clarify the position of the Police Ombudsman and update the House.
466 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.86).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:08 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.