Debate contribution: Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill
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
- Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528502
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member has, as always, started from the position of assuming that I am in the wrong. It is always helpful for me to have the opportunity to correct that notion. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing to stop the criminal Bar coming back to work at any time. That is the first thing. The criminal Bar remaining outside will not influence the outcome of the accelerated review or the outcome of my deliberations on the report of that review. The report arrived with me on 24 or 27 April — I will check the date — and is now with my officials, so that they can provide advice. I anticipate getting that advice in the next few days and will make quick decisions on a way forward. I will meet the Bar, as my officials have, and the solicitors' criminal Bar. The accelerated review came up with proposals, but I cannot guarantee that, if I were to implement those proposals in full, they would be acceptable to the solicitors' criminal Bar or to the criminal Bar. Previous demands that they made were met in full, and that did not result in a return to work; in fact, it resulted in an escalation of the action. Only the criminal Bar can control whether or not it returns to court. I urge it to do so, because the Member is, of course, absolutely correct on the fundamental point about the impact on victims and witnesses.
248 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: 0.06 (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 (0.70).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.70 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.81 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.17 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:36 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.