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
- 10 February 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 5435609
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I concur with everything that the Member has said, and I am sure that she will agree with me that there is something fundamentally distasteful and unethical about leveraging people's trauma for personal benefit. I believe that it is wrong to do that. I do not want victims to become bargaining chips in this exchange. That is why I said that any suggestion that a derogation would be turned on and off like a tap as a means of moving this forward is not acceptable to me. I cannot have a situation where, for example, the defence counsel in some of those cases makes decisions on whether or not a case will proceed to court. The derogations were sought by the Public Prosecution Service on the basis of its professional assessment of the urgency of the situation. It took into account the feedback that it got from victims' and witnesses' services. I believe that those derogations should happen: they will mitigate the ongoing strike, not provide a resolution to it. I am due to meet Chloe Mitchell's family, shortly, on the specific implications for her case of the withdrawal of service. Unfortunately, I cannot give them the certainty that they want. Neither, indeed, would the idea of derogations being turned on and off like a tap give that family certainty. That is why my proposals were that they return, initially, to the situation prior to 5 January, and then return to full service while negotiations continue. Only that will give victims the certainty that they need on when their cases will be scheduled. That is the point that I want to get to. I still believe that it is possible to do that, but it will require the CBA being willing to meet me halfway.
295 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 | 0.64 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.32 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:52 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.