Debate contribution: Penalty Notices
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Penalty Notices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111243
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It certainly will not be at the expense of justice. As the Member knows, in the sentencing Bill that is due to be introduced later this year, we will increase the penalty for attacks on anyone providing a public service or engaged in public duties, including police officers. It will raise the sentence available in the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. This proposal is to deal with the level of offending that currently would either not be prosecuted or would not reach the threshold for prosecution in the Crown Court. We are talking about stuff at the lower end of the spectrum that might fall foul of not being prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court. The proposal was brought forward by the PSNI because it was keen to have a quick response to low-level offending. The experience is that having a quick response to low-level offending, whether that is a financial penalty or some other out-of-court disposal, means that people are less likely to reoffend and less likely to come to the attention of the police again. To be clear, however, if they reoffend within, for example, 12 months of having a penalty notice given to them, they cannot get a second penalty notice; they will then face prosecution. You are right: we will not lose sight of justice in all of that, but we have to think about whether justice delayed serves the public. We need to ensure that there is a proportionate use of resources so that the most serious offenders are dealt with expeditiously, as well as low-level offending.
262 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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | 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 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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 13:13 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.