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 5111251
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The programme is looking at the handling of cases and trying to get the most serious cases to court more quickly, because that, ultimately, is how we ensure the best protection of the public. It also allows us the best opportunity to work with offenders and deal with their behaviours. In addition, it is best for victims because they will have a much shorter wait for their case to be dealt with. We are looking at five work streams: existing work on committal reform; existing and emerging work in the digital arena; and exploring other areas, including early engagement, court remits and, as I have said, out-of-court disposals. As you will know, the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill passed through the Assembly in October 2022. We are now working with justice partners on the next phase to allow cases to be transferred directly from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court. Early engagement is looking at how police, the PPS and defence can work better together to expedite cases, ensuring that cases are in a good state of readiness when they come before the court. That should reduce the number of adjournments and ensure that there is no nugatory work being undertaken by prosecutors and police where there is already agreement on certain facts of the case. I am also looking at how we can better use technology to improve efficiency and support victims and witnesses through the process. We are looking at those issues seriously. Although we are currently focused on out-of-court disposals, they are only one element of the overall work that we are doing. The latest departmental statistics indicate that the average time taken for a case to be dealt with from the date on which the offence is reported to the police is 189 days. That is a 16% improvement over the past three years. It is a key measure of how the system is performing overall, a sign that efforts to speed up the justice system are having an impact and an indication that we need to continue down that road and keep the pressure on.
351 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: 0.02 (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 (0.82).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.