Member's statement: Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Services
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 January 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5321990
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is concerning that the Justice Minister is having to clarify her words and apologise for inaccuracies around important matters that impact on victims' lives, their upcoming court cases and people's livelihoods and jobs. We need the Justice Minister to do all in her power to prioritise the recommencement of criminal court cases. We need the Criminal Bar Association to do all that it can to end its strike. Putting out inaccurate information will not help anyone, not least the victims of some of the most heinous crimes in our recent history. I have spoken with some of the victims' families who have been desperately awaiting trial. That is not an easy thing. Their worlds were cut asunder when they lost loved ones to murder. People's lives were cut asunder when their loved one was a victim of a sexual crime. However, those people have to wait and then prepare themselves for a trial in which all the details will be laid bare for all to see. That is not easy, yet those victims and their families are now faced with an intolerable anxiety and wait, because not only do they have to live with that delay but they have no idea of when their loved ones will receive justice. They have not got a date, which could even be delayed again, or a time, meaning that they cannot prepare themselves. That in itself is criminal. Again, I ask the Justice Minister to reprioritise the issue, stay off the microphone, get around the table with the representatives from the Criminal Bar Association and step up to resolve the issue for the victims of crime.
274 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: 0.05 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.66 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.18 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:12 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.