Debate contribution: Criminal Bar Association Strike: Ian McCollum Case
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
- Criminal Bar Association Strike: Ian McCollum Case
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528572
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First and foremost, I agree. It is completely unwarranted that people are being re-traumatised as a result of their feeling the need to come to me, any other elected representative, the PPS or the CBA to recount their trauma and seek a derogation. I do not believe that any victim, any witness or, indeed, any person should have to go through that. It is not an ethical situation. I am glad that the case has been resolved, and I hope that that brings some comfort to the family. When it comes to how expeditiously I will try to resolve the matter with the Bar, I have never dragged my heels on the issues. When I got the report from the Burgess review, I implemented it in good faith and backdated it to the point at which I made the decision, not just to the point at which I announced it. On each occasion on which the criminal Bar has raised issues with me, I have tried to act in good faith. I have to say that that has not been reciprocated, because one of the conditions for undertaking the accelerated review was that the Bar would play no further part in deciding which cases got a derogation, but it did not hold up its end of the bargain. In order to ensure that victims and witnesses were not negatively affected, I allowed the accelerated review to proceed in spite of that, and I will continue to do everything that I can to ensure that justice is available to every victim and every person in the court system without their having to go cap in hand to anyone to ask for it. I also reinforce what I said earlier, which is that there is nothing to prevent the Bar going back to work today.
303 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: 0.08 (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 (0.77).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | 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 | 0.64 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.34 |
| 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.