Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 151.
“Doug also raised, as I anticipated he would before he had even spoken, the sentencing council. I know that he is passionate about that, and I understand why. As you know, there is the Sentencing Council for England and Wales and a similar model in Scotland. Given that there was division and not full agreement the last time on a sentencing council, we decided to put that into the sentencing review. We want to look at it again and ask whether it would need to be like the Sentencing Council for England and Wales or whether, short of that, we can do something else that will still give the kind of transparency and accountability that people are seeking.”
“However, I am happy insofar as we have the capacity to lean in and try to be of assistance where we can. <BR /> <BR />I welcome what Connie said, particularly about recognising that the Bill will not be the be-all and end-all when it comes to sentencing. It is the start of a process of change, and further sentencing provisions will be introduced in due course. I do not want perfect to become the enemy of the good. It is more important that we get this done, and done right, than that we get everything that we could possibly throw at it squeezed in. That is important.”
“We would not have the capacity to do it, and I do not believe that the Office of the Legislative Counsel would be able to do it either, given the amount of pressure that is building on it from Executive colleagues progressing more legislation. I agree that there is a risk that this is done, or done badly, at haste rather than in detail. I am willing to engage with the Committee. If there is a way that we can do something in this space, or create an opportunity to do something by regulation, such as putting an enabling power in place, I will be happy to have those conversations. I do not want to shut it down, because I recognise that this is an emotive issue for the families involved, but I know that in order to find the resource to do this, we would have to stop other significant pieces of work that I cannot stop.”
“That is another possibility, and Members may want to look to that. At the end of the day, I cannot prescribe what happens. I hope that the Member understands this — he has seen the draft Budget and the impact of the Budget. He talks about the Committee only having five members of staff. Of course, the Department has more than five, but not in this area of work. The officials who I see on this Bill are the same officials I see for all the other Bills. People have lost a sense of connection with how small the core part of DOJ is. A lot of the staff from our overall numbers are deployed on the front line — in prisons, policing and other areas. If you look at who we have to do this work, you will see that we are talking about very small teams of dedicated people.”
“We would assist with whatever conversations needed to happen with the other Departments, but we need to think through the consequences, because this is the tip of a big iceberg where people's personal privacy and dignity are being intruded upon all the time on social media and other platforms. It causes real distress to families and to people who are given assistance by the roadside or on the street. It is something that we need to think of. I am happy to engage —.”
“So I am worried that, by focusing solely on road traffic accidents, we will miss other incidents, such as somebody getting medical treatment on the street, for example, or somebody who has overdosed. This is about the dignity and safety of individuals — those who are in crisis on the street and those who are receiving treatment in the public domain. <BR /> <BR />We could do something around Caoimhe's law and keep it narrow, but, at some point, we will have to come back to this and look at whether a wider piece of work needs to be done. If the Committee was going to do it, it would have to be kept quite narrow in order for it to be well defined.”
“It would. This is one of the conversations that we need to have: do we want to do this quickly, or do we want to do it completely? This is about victims of road accidents. I understand the passion that people have around that, but there are other circumstances. When my father died, he dropped dead on the street. People were working on him outside on the street. I will never forget going to the front door, as a 10-year-old child, and not realising that it was him, but seeing him lying there being worked on. I do not know how I would have reacted if that had been photographed and spread over the internet. That is something that I did not have to deal with. It is still burned in my mind, but it is something that most people will not see.”
“However, if the Committee is minded to do something, it would probably fall within the scope of the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. My officials will be more than happy to guide and assist where they can.”
“It involves not just the Department of Justice but quite a few others, including Health and Infrastructure, as well as the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has responsibility for digital policy, so it has a lot of control over what can and cannot be put up. It is a cross-departmental issue. I have said that the issue would fit better in the victims and witnesses of crime Bill that is about to be introduced in the spring and that, if Committee members are minded to bring forward an amendment, the Department can assist with that. However, we as a Department simply would not have the time or the capacity to do it. We would have to go to full consultation and go through a series of processes that, to be honest, we could not navigate with the resources available to us.”
“I hope that what I said about age, transgender, sex, gender and misogyny has given him some reassurance, and that what I said in response to the issues that he and Doug raised about unduly lenient sentencing in the Magistrates' Court has given them some reassurance that we are aware of those issues and take them seriously. Of course, if we decide to further expand the Magistrates' Court, we will look at whether we need to extend the undue leniency provisions. There is the opportunity for us to do that in one of the clauses. <BR /> <BR />The next issue that Patsy raised was Caoimhe's law. Caoimhe's law is not in the Bill. It was brought to us recently by families who are campaigning. There are a number of issues. First, it cuts across the responsibilities of several Departments.”
“Therefore, if Members have any new or novel amendments to make in that space, I ask them, first, to reconsider them and, secondly and more importantly, in their consideration, to engage with the Minister for Infrastructure, because I had to get cross-cutting approval for what we have, and it works with what Minister Kimmins is doing. I do not want us to go off-piste and end up doing something that could be dangerous or difficult in that context. <BR /> <BR />I will move on. Patsy reflected on the delays and dysfunction, and he is absolutely right.”
“The issue is about saying that, if you are providing a public service to some degree or other, that is an aggravating factor. The degree to which it is an aggravator is something that the courts can look at. <BR /> <BR />The other issue that the Chair raised — trust me, I will not go through every Member's comments in this level of detail or we will be here until tomorrow — was road traffic offences. I put on record that it is unusual for the Department of Justice to legislate in that space. It is normally the Department for Infrastructure that does so.”
“There are a couple of things. The Member, rightly, said that, even under his legislative changes that were made in 2016, there were people who missed out, such as ED staff. Receptionists in a doctor's surgery often take the brunt of abuse, not the GP. They do not save lives, but they are part of the process that does. I think of people who work in the Prison Service, such as custody nurses, probation officers and solicitors who are meeting their clients. They all provide essential services. I am not particularly comfortable with the idea of a sliding scale, although I am willing to explore it with the Member. I completely accept that those who do emergency work, who are there to save lives and who are hampered by attacks are in a particular category, but that would be taken into account by the judge in sentencing anyway.”
“People are being assaulted. Bus drivers tell us about being pulled out of their bus seat and punched in the head when they are driving a bus to get people from A to B. I do not want to create a system in which those who deliver a public service or carry out a public duty are disallowed from using the legislation, but, rather than produce a narrow list and find that we have missed someone out, it is better to create the context and allow the courts and the PPS to decide whether it is appropriate in each individual circumstance.”
“As politicians, we need to show leadership in that area and to have an agreed definition of sectarianism before we start to legislate for it as an aggravator. <BR /> <BR />Another issue that was raised was assaults on public workers. I understand the reason for the concern that those clauses may be too wide, but, sadly, as many Members said, we see front-line workers in all sorts of work areas affected by that. MPs have been murdered. We all have locks on our constituency office doors that we did not have 10 years ago. That pains me, because I want to have an open-door policy so that people can simply walk in off the street and ask for help. It has become too normal for violence to be accepted. It is not acceptable that people are beaten up in their shops at night when they are there to try to protect and deliver for the community.”
“As was rightly noted by both Aoife Finnegan and Emma Sheerin, it is important that any future policy decisions on that are considered within the TEO-led framework on the ending violence against women and girls strategy. I want to engage with TEO on that. <BR /> <BR />Equally, the issue of sectarianism has been raised. Tackling sectarianism is an issue that is close to my heart. We need to do further work on sectarianism in the consultation phase, but we found that Scotland was the only region with a legal definition of sectarianism, and that has now been all but overturned. We all know what sectarianism is: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the chances are that it is a duck. It is harder to define that in law, however, and I do not want to simply leave it to the courts to decide what sectarianism is.”
“<BR /> <BR />The other issue was about sex or gender being protected characteristics in the Bill. Further policy work is needed in that area, continuing the assessment of the suitability of the inclusion of either "sex" or "gender" as a protected characteristic in hate crime legislation. That will also be part of the phase 2 public consultation, because, in this society, we rightly recognise that there are real issues around not just sexism or chauvinism — that is not to diminish the impact that they have — but actual misogyny, whereby women are treated, as we see, not just with disrespect but in ways that make them fear for their safety. It is important that we take that seriously.”
“There was not capacity to include a number of pieces of Judge Marrinan's work in the phase 1 consultation, and we have not had the capacity to do the phase 2 consultation, as yet. As Paula Bradshaw mentioned, there has been significant progress on strengthening protections for older people and vulnerable people since Marrinan's review. The vulnerability aggravator clause in the Bill and the Department of Health's Adult Protection Bill both contain provisions that may address some issues of crime against older people. I am open to considering the need for hate crime protections for older people, but I do not want to have duplication, with different offences creating a complex landscape that ends up with nobody using the provisions that are already there.”
“On the issue of age, the Department originally intended to make provision to deal with attacks on older people. Through the process of consultation, however, it was established that it was not old age itself but vulnerability that was people's key concern. As well as placing in statute the need to protect the most vulnerable, the clause on vulnerability allows the criminal justice system to record the incidence of that type of offending, which will enable us to identify whether resource needs to be directed to preventing and dealing with that. <BR /> <BR />A final decision will be taken on whether age should be included, once we have finished the phase 2 consultation to which I referred.”
“It will be useful to engage with the Committee, as I will with the Executive, in order to try to resolve the issue in a way that, hopefully, will protect those who are most vulnerable.”
“I sought the agreement of colleagues to add transgender to the list of protected groups, and, on the basis of what, I thought, was consensus, I did so. Unfortunately, that was not the case, and I had to remove it from the Bill. I was disappointed to have to remove it. When it comes to hate crime, you have to include those who are most vulnerable, and transgender people are incredibly vulnerable at this time. However, I did not want other victims of hate crime to be disadvantaged further by delays to the legislation. I am still open to providing whatever reassurance is required to allow the inclusion of transgender as a protected characteristic in the Bill or via secondary legislation, for which we have also made provision.”
“By reducing the harm, risk and vulnerability associated with hate crime, whether that is racist graffiti, attacks on the homes of newcomer communities or the intimidation of families in new developments, the purpose is to make communities feel safer and enhance public safety. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members raised the issue of transgender identity. Of course, the need for provisions was well documented in the findings of Judge Marrinan's public consultation and the 10 years' worth of evidence that the PSNI shared, showing that transgender people are victims of hate crime and, sadly, increasingly so. This is the only part of these islands where there are no specific protections for transgender people. I do not think that that is a uniqueness that any of us wishes to continue.”
“It requires the court to explain how the fact that the offence is aggravated affects the sentence imposed, and, where that aggravation is not proven, as I said, a conviction for the basic offence will still be available. The consequence is that you would be able to record the motivation, which should help us to be more effective in rehabilitation. The benefit of doing that is that we could start to tackle the attitudes that underpin and enable hate crime. I hope that that will modernise the law in a way that will strengthen protections for the most vulnerable, provide the deterrent that we wish to provide to offenders and ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence and the harm that hate crime incidents cause to not only the victim but the wider community.”
“If somebody were to come to us with a common assault, our approach would be different from our approach to a racially motivated or disability motivated hate crime, and the targeted interventions that we would want to make would be different. <BR /> <BR />Members have spoken at length about the issue of aggravation by hostility. Rather than jumping around, I will stick with that. The current enhanced sentencing model has not really proved to be effective or easy to apply. I do not think that it really works in the interests of defendants or victims of hate crime. We are trying to allow any criminal offence to be chargeable as being aggravated by hostility where the victim belongs to a racial, religious, sexual orientation or disability group.”
“That would allow us to have a really good measure of where the problems lie. It would also allow the prosecution of the original offence. If it were assault but the hate motive assumed or inferred could not be proven, you could still be charged with common assault, for example. It means that somebody will still be punished. If we created a suite of new offences, the risk would be that, if you could not make out the hate crime motivation, the case would fall completely. That would lead to even more frustration for those who are vulnerable. Crucially, it would also allow us to take account of motivation in sentencing and rehabilitation.”
“If its sentencing remit were increased, that would allow us to list the sentences that could be appealed for undue leniency. <BR /> <BR />As I said, I will come back to the aggravator model in a while. The Member said that the court would decide. There are a number of phases. First, the PSNI would have to decide that there was a reason to consider it as a hate crime and do the investigation, as you would expect. The Public Prosecution Service would need to decide to try it as a hate crime in the first instance, and the courts would then have to decide whether the hate motive was made out in the court. The benefit, however, is significant. First, you could record the level of those crimes, which is important because, often, the difference between hate incidents and hate crimes and so on becomes very blurred.”
“Given the cost involved and the time taken to appeal, the sentence would probably have been served, if it had not already been served on remand, so it would be a pyrrhic victory to say that a month should be added to it. The person might still be "time served" at the end of the process because they have waited longer than six months to get to court. It is about striking a balance. What we have done, however, which I hope will provide those who have concerns in that space with some reassurance, is to make provision for the review to apply to sentences imposed on summary trial for offences that we can describe in regulations. That would kick in if we were to decide to increase the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court.”
“When residents find out that they are there on probation, they find it encouraging that people who have made a mistake in their life are out there giving something back. That is, in many ways, a much more visible form of justice, as people can see that something has been fixed because people have given something back proportionate to what they took from society. That is really important. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members, including Doug Beattie, asked why we do not extend the review of undue leniency to the Magistrates' Court. Part of the reason is that the sentences available in the Magistrates' Court are much lower. The majority of sentences in that court are of six months maximum. A number are of a year, and, by exception, some are of two years.”
“It will vary from place to place and from person to person, but, if Members consider what happens with probation, for example, they will know that people volunteer in various community and voluntary organisations. Many do work in the community where their behaviours have caused harm and are therefore able to give something back. Reparation is part of the purpose of sentencing. Communities often feel better if they see somebody who has done harm in their community putting something back into it. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that most Members are aware of this, but, as an MLA, I have contacted the Probation Board to say that there is a piece of ground or another area, perhaps where the residents are elderly, that has fallen into disrepair and become overgrown. Those guys will go in and give a real service.”
“Fraud, for example, carries a serious sentence. If suspending that sentence in order to allow somebody to get treatment, rehabilitation and support means that they do not offend again, that is a better outcome for society than locking them up for a prolonged period. If we can change people's behaviours in that context —.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will give Members the statistics on that. About 18% of sentences for adult disposals in the courts in Northern Ireland have been suspended. The vast majority were in the Magistrates' Court, which is to be expected, given that the cases heard there tend to be of a less serious nature. There were a higher number of summary convictions in that court compared with the Crown Court, where there were only about 1,500 convictions. Over the same period, about 3,450 immediate custodial sentences were imposed across all courts, including the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. <BR /> <BR />It is not that we want to overuse suspended sentences, but they may be a way forward. Philip helpfully set out how it is not just victims but perpetrators who can be vulnerable. People who break the law have their own vulnerabilities.”
“Earlier, we talked about problem-solving courts such as the substance misuse courts. Suspending sentencing until somebody has gone through a period of treatment can have an impact on encouraging desistance from reoffending. For us, it is about whether we can put measures in place as part of a suspended sentence, which normally does not happen. Normally, the person's sentence is suspended, and, if they do not reoffend in the suspended period, it falls away. It is counted as a custodial sentence for firearms appeals and other things, but people do not have to serve time in prison. Would it not be better if we were to engage that person in rehabilitation during the suspension period so that we could support their rehabilitation and assist them to move away from offending? That is the purpose behind what we are trying to do.”
“I argue that, as with Helen's law and what will be Charlotte's law here, we need to look at Harper's law to see what we can do to achieve those objectives in a way that is fit for purpose in Northern Ireland, and I would like to do that as part of the review. <BR /> <BR />The issue of suspended sentences was raised. We are not changing the current arrangements for suspended sentences or the sentences that they can apply to, but we are strengthening how they work. At the moment, the structure for when somebody's sentence can be suspended is already set out in law. We do not intend to change that in the Bill. However, we have learned from, for example, community-based sentencing and the work of the probation service and others that working with somebody can be transformative.”
“Here is the thing: some people do not realise the impact of the sentence until the first night when the door clicks closed in prison, and those first few weeks can be the point when the person reflects on what they have done. They have been found guilty and sentenced, and they now realise that this will be their life for the foreseeable future. That is another learning opportunity, and somebody can come forward even then to allow their sentence to be reviewed in light of giving up that information. By the time that the case gets to the Parole Commissioners, that should be the last stop. You want to do as much as you can up front to get the information as soon as you can.”
“Instead, by working with the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian over a sustained period, we have come up with a better and more fit-for-purpose solution. While the Parole Commissioners will have to give due regard to that, it could be 20 years after the death of the person, and that is a long time to wait for vital information. Therefore, we have looked at a sliding scale of benefit. If a person admits to the crime when they are arrested and says where the body is, that is the ideal. If they say it when they are charged formally or arraigned in court, that is different. If they say it during sentencing, there should be some reward for that. They may say it immediately after sentencing.”
“<BR /> <BR />In that context, the Member raised Harper's law. I met his colleague Phillip Brett, because he had campaigned on that issue. My understanding is that, as yet, Harper's law has not been used in England and Wales, so its impact may not be as significant. I would like to look at Harper's law as part of the sentencing review. I will consider the difference between Charlotte's law and Helen's law. There was a clamour in the previous mandate for us to introduce Helen's law, which was to say that the Parole Commissioners should have due consideration of the fact that a murderer had withheld the location of the body in a no-body murder case. That was it: that was all that Helen's law did.”
“I am like everyone else: the fear that this place may not be restored immediately after the next election, that there could be delay or hesitation and that we might not be able to make more progress drives us all to try to pack everything that we can into the only vehicle available. It is not necessarily good practice, and it is right that we should take time to do the policy development. That is why I have decided to implement the review of sentencing in parallel, so that we can pick up the issues that we do not have the policy development or the evidence base to legislate for in the Bill but that we know are important to Members and the community. We can start the work to develop policy in that space, because this will not, by any means, be the last sentencing Bill that comes to the House from the Department of Justice.”
“A number of other issues were raised, particularly around age, sectarianism and the phase 2 consultation. Transgender issues were raised by a number of Members. I will come to that, because we need to look more closely at the aggravating model on that. However, I highlight the review of sentencing, which is happening in parallel with the Bill. There is no single Bill that we can bring to the House that will deal with everything; it is impossible. I was heavily criticised for trying to do just that. With my first Justice Bill, I took a lot of heat for wanting to add things from some of the Members who are now ambitious to add to this Bill.”
“They end up as victims because of other people’s decisions, and it is important that they have some agency over what happens in the case at that point.”
“By allowing victims' families and victims themselves to put in a statement at that point and to be heard is vital in re-injecting their loss, pain and trauma into the process so that it is fully and adequately considered. It is also, for many, the only chance that they will get to have their voice heard in the courtroom. Where defendants, for example, plead guilty before a trial, victims will never get the chance to talk about what happened to them. It is their one chance to have their voice. As Members have rightly said, it is not just about justice being done: it is about justice being seen to be done. When we are dealing with trauma and we become trauma-informed, we learn that people do not end up as victims because they choose to be.”
“We initially thought that we might need legislation, or at least changes to court rules, to allow that to happen. We now know that that is not the case. It is also not the case for the Parole Commissioners. We have seen over recent years, as campaigners have spoken out on this, that more and more victims have had the opportunity to read their statement into the record in the courts or at a parole hearing. That is not a trivial matter. Of course, they could always do it on paper, but there is a perception amongst victims that, at the point where conviction happens, the process moves on and their loved one or their loss becomes almost inconsequential, and all the focus is on the perpetrator and how to deal with that person in sentencing — what are their good points, bad points and rehabilitation opportunities and other things.”
“As it goes through the various stages in the Assembly, I hope that we can continue in that spirit and ensure that an important piece of legislation reaches the statute book as soon as possible and starts delivering for those who enter the justice system across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Many of you are supportive of the provisions of the Bill as introduced, and some of you have ambitions to change some of those provisions. I will get to that somewhat later. I turn to some of the issues that were raised during the debate. Paul Frew raised quite a number of issues, as you would anticipate that he would, as Chair of the Committee. One of the things that he mentioned in passing was the use of victim statements and how that would be incorporated.”
“It should not take us 10 years, but we only had five when we were actually here to do the job. What we can do collectively is ensure that this place runs more effectively and more efficiently so that we can do more of the stuff that is impactful. We have seen today how much this impacts on people in our community and how it affects people's lives. What we do here is not just theatre and pantomime: it has to be important, and legislation is where the rubber hits the road. I think that it has taken too long to get to this point, but I am glad that we are now here. As I have said, I thank all Members for their very constructive and positive engagement on the Bill.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This debate has been an excellent one, and I thank all the Members who participated. I hope that I will be able to touch on most of the issues that you have raised. If I do not do that today, please come back to me, because there will be opportunities for us to engage as we go forward. <BR /> <BR />Progressing this legislation to improve the effectiveness and the operation of the justice system, particularly as it relates to sentencing, is a priority. It has taken too long to get to this point. A number of Members have mentioned the 10 years that it has taken. Claire Sugden mentioned that, 10 years ago, she originally launched the review of sentencing that has led to many of the things that we have brought forward today.”
“I provide reassurance for those who may have some concerns in that regard that there are no implications for the Supreme Court judgement or for any of the other factors that we have heard debated today. When it comes to hate crime, it is simply about individuals who are being attacked because of hostility towards them.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I initially drafted the Bill with transgender identity included, because I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would argue that, when it comes to being a victim of crime, somebody who is transgender should be any less well protected than a member of any other vulnerable group. Initially, that was agreed by three of the four parties in the Executive. Unfortunately, to date, we have not had agreement from the fourth party, which is why it is not included in the Bill as introduced. <BR /> <BR />I have not given up yet, however. It was made clear that the door is still open for more engagement, and, with Executive approval, we may be able to table an amendment that would address what the Member asks. That would be the ideal circumstance for that to happen.”
“Support for victims is important, and speeding up justice is important — I totally agree — but that is one of the starkest changes that I have seen through the use of remote evidence centres.”
“I really appreciate the Member giving way, and I apologise, but this is something that I am genuinely passionate about. It is really important to look at how infrequently domestic abuse cases are made out in court and contrast that with the figures for domestic abuse contest cases that have been heard in the remote evidence centre, where victims feel confident enough to turn up: we now have a 92% conviction rate. Many of those cases will be admissions of guilt on the day, because the witness has come to give their evidence, and others will go through the court process and be convicted. That shows the degree to which the system is gamed by some people in the hope that their victim will lose heart and withdraw from the case.”
“I recognise, however, that the public have to be confident about it as well. Along with the director general of the Prison Service, we have looked at how we can bring forward that review, and I will hopefully have more to tell you about that in the weeks ahead.”
“The legal position is clear: there is no conflict. People are released on licence under the Life Sentence Order only when they have served their tariff but can be released by the prison, under the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules, at any time during that period for good reason, and one of those good reasons is rehabilitation. <BR /> <BR />I want to make the Member aware, because there has not been a previous opportunity for me to do so, that we are looking to do a review of how we go about doing pre-release testing with independent scrutiny. I am confident that the system is working well. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) has said that it agrees, and the Parole Commissioners have not raised any issue with us about how we operate pre-release testing.”