Debate contribution: Speeding Up Justice Programme
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Speeding Up Justice Programme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453244
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Significant progress has already been made, but we are in a difficult position because the withdrawal of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) from cases has been, if you like, acting contrary to our intentions. However, we have been looking carefully and, of course, there is much more to be done. We made a 7·8% reduction in case-processing times across 2023-24 and another 0·5% across 2024-25. That is something positive that we have been able to deliver. The Criminal Justice Board is also giving careful consideration to the development of formal targets for reducing delay so that we can provide those measurables. A range of options has been explored to determine how system-wide targets can be approached and derived. Defining what measures we should monitor is straightforward, but agreeing what meaningful targets look like is less straightforward, so we are still working on that. In line with the public transformation board funding, a range of action-based targets has been set. At present, as I said, we are focusing on the development of out-of-court disposals. After that, we will look at the Magistrates' Court and then at some of the other measures that I mentioned earlier.
194 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: 0.02 (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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 15:05 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.