Debate contribution: Katie Simpson Review

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 5 May 2026.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

5 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Katie Simpson Review

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5524496

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I have already dealt with the fact that so many people who were being investigated for the mishandling of the case were able to retire, and I have set out the changes that I intend to make to ensure that there can be no repeat of that. In addition to the review report, which clearly identifies the misogyny, confirmation biases and victim-blaming narratives that were accepted, I am aware that a recently published independent review confirmed that there was clear evidence of sexism and misogyny in the PSNI. It would be, frankly, ridiculous of me to stand here and say that I am satisfied with how Katie Simpson's murder was investigated from the outset, when a report that is before me highlights many failings, not just by the PSNI but by health trusts and others that were in direct contact with Katie and with Jonathan Creswell over a significant period. I will not sweep what is in the report under the carpet. Instead, I have asked Dr Melia to take forward the implementation of the report's recommendations, as I said, and I will make sure that what is in the report is learned from and that our systems change and improve. Any system that is made up of human beings will have flaws. That is the reality of the human condition. What we need are systems that can be set in place whenever those flaws or biases are exposed to prevent further harm being done. That is the purpose of the report. It is important that I say that the PSNI, along with all the other agencies that were asked to cooperate with the investigation, cooperated openly and transparently. That is not just my assessment; it is the assessment of Dr Jan Melia, who is better-placed than anyone else to give that assurance.

The purpose of the review was to look at systemic failures in the public protection system — the PSNI and the other statutory and voluntary agencies that were directly involved. I am aware of the allegations, as are most people in the Chamber, but it was not a criminal investigation and, therefore, it would not have looked into the issue of whether there had been any attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is what such a call may have amounted to. It was not a criminal investigation but was about the systems that are in place to protect people. Those who have information about that call — the alleged conversation and interventions — need to provide that directly to either the PSNI or the ombudsman for thorough investigation. The Member will be aware that, as I said at the outset, there is an ongoing ombudsman investigation. That investigation may or may not lead to criminal proceedings; it is still to be concluded. There will also be a coroner's inquest. Those may be better forums for looking at what are essentially allegations of malfeasance in public office or perverting the course of justice. Either of those could be looked at by the PSNI or the ombudsman at any time.

513 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification