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 5435613
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Given that the Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association has, in contrast to the Criminal Bar Association, been very proactive in its engagement with the Burgess road map and the ongoing review, and without detriment to the service that was provided to its clients, I have been clear that any accelerated review would also have to take account of the SCBA's outstanding issues with the road map. I wrote to the SCBA, at the same time as I wrote to the CBA, to ask for a list of issues that it would like to be included in an accelerated review. The SCBA wrote back on 23 January with a number of asks. Clearly, now that the CBA has rejected the terms of that offer, we are in a different space. I am sure that, like me, SCBA members are incredibly disappointed, because, ultimately, it is its clients who are not getting a service from the criminal Bar. We will set that disappointment aside and pick up the pieces. We will continue with the road map process that is already in place, and we will continue to resolve issues for the SCBA based on the evidence that it has willingly and helpfully provided.
200 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 (0.73).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.