Debate contribution: Firearms: Appeals
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Firearms: Appeals
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528462
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The first issue is that the number of appeals that the Department receives annually does vary. It is between 40 and 70 in an average year, but we have seen over 100 in some years. In 2025, the number was particularly low. There were only 22 appeals, which may explain why the backlog started to clear, and 14 of those are being progressed. In 2026 so far, nine appeals have been decided and brought to conclusion by a senior officer, and the branch has received 11 appeals to date. It is a small team in the branch that processes appeals. Whilst we recently added an additional senior officer to progress appeals, it is challenging because the firearms team has other statutory responsibilities under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, including the firearms consultation process, engaging with stakeholders and the Justice Committee, and for the consultation responses that are being gathered. The PSNI's firearms and explosives branch is also a small team. It has to supply the information required in an appeal to the Department, and both teams are subject to staff changes on occasion. Officials also have to respond to any queries or subject access requests made by appellants or their representatives for information in respect of appeals, and that takes them away from processing appeals. They try to do that in a timely manner. For comparison: in January 2025, there were 71 live appeals; in July, there were 65; and currently, there are only 47.
246 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: 0.03 (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 (0.64).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:35 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.