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 5435617
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are a few things to say on that. First, when I am asked questions about the situation, which is a matter of public interest, I will answer them. I will not be curtailed by any of the legal professions, or, indeed, by Members, when answering public interest questions. In the same way, you are asking me questions here that are leading me into having a public conversation about the issue. You cannot have it both ways. I am answering the questions openly and honestly, but Members will note that, when we made the offer at the start of January 2026, I did not make any public comment. I did not speak to the House other than to say that an offer had been made. I did not go into the detail of it: I did not say anything further. If others are going to engage in misrepresentation of what my Department and I have been doing over the past 14 months, I will, of course, refute that and provide the evidence to show otherwise. It is not about pitting one group of people against another. To be clear, it is in the interests of justice and of the Northern Ireland public that all those cases proceed to conclusion. That is also in the interests of those who are accused, many of whom are being held on remand and have not been sentenced, and of others in the community who have been grievously wounded and are not seeing justice for their loved ones in the courts. That has to be dealt with. I am not the one who is suggesting that those people should become pawns in a game about how much people get paid.
285 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: 0.10 (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 (0.66).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.78 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.15 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.