Debate contribution: Crown Court Legal Aid Dispute: Progression of Cases
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Crown Court Legal Aid Dispute: Progression of Cases
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5482342
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to answer questions 4, 10 and 15 together. It is incredibly disheartening that I am, once again, updating the Chamber on the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) service withdrawal. The ever-decreasing resources at our disposal should not be focused on mitigating avoidable levels of harm, and neither should we be trying, through derogations, to balance the needs of those who have already suffered immeasurable loss and trauma, but, unfortunately, that is the very real outcome of the CBA decision to continue with its withdrawal. The withdrawal continues to unnecessarily harm victims and witnesses and will cause damage to the system, which we do not have the resources to repair. It is also to no end, as it will not change outcomes. Furthermore, I have already repeatedly demonstrated my commitment to resolving what have been ever-changing asks from the CBA.
I demonstrated that commitment again when I commissioned the accelerated review, dedicating yet more of my already depleted resources to it and appointing two independent leads in an effort to address at pace the remaining issues. The review is due to conclude no later than 27 April, and I hope that it will bring that unwarranted action to an end. In the interim, it is for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to determine which cases should proceed while the withdrawal is ongoing. That was a condition of my commencing the review. It is right that those who properly understand the detail and impact of offences and who are directly supporting victims and witnesses assess which cases most need to proceed. That assessment will be based on the individual facts of cases, including the nature of the offence and the level of risk of further offending towards complainants and others. I do not underestimate the challenge that that presents for the PPS, and it should not be in the pernicious position of making those decisions. I therefore call on all Members to press, as I am doing, the CBA to return to full service as a matter of urgency.
343 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 | 0.88 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:18 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.