Debate contribution: Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Services
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348576
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are a number of things. First, I have not given up hope yet that it can be concluded sooner rather than later. It is important that one should not be overly hopeful but, rather, be sensible about it. It can be done. With goodwill on both sides, we can get to where we need to be in a relatively short time, but that depends on people showing willing. We need to look at two things. One is the short-term measures on mitigations. A total of 13 cases have been assessed by people who are experts in supporting victims and witnesses and understand the cases. Those cases have been identified for a derogation from the strike. We are asking the Bar to proceed with those 13 cases. They are already in progress, so it makes sense that they be able to progress to a conclusion. They involve high-risk and vulnerable victims. So far, there has been agreement on only one of those cases, but I understand that conversations are ongoing between the PPS and the Bar about some of the other cases. That is one thing that we can do. In the longer term, we need to look at the issue, because this is not the first time that we have had a strike by the criminal Bar. We cannot have the justice system essentially being held hostage periodically as a result of disputes. We can do better on issues such as regular reviews, fee levels and regular engagement, and I have undertaken to do so, but we also need to look at alternative delivery of service, which will be put on the longer finger. Nevertheless, it still needs to be looked at.
283 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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.