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 5111255
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As I explained, it is in the proposal because Mr Burrows's former colleagues in the PSNI suggested that it was one of the offences on which we should consult. Given that they were leading on that aspect of speeding up justice, I believed that it was important to consult on that. We will look at that, but there are lower levels of offending, as well as circumstances around offending that the police will consider. If we go to out-of-court disposals, we will effectively widen the range of tools available to the PSNI in how they respond to offending. If a police officer has their nose broken, the person who did it will not simply get an out-of-court disposal; they may well face prosecution in the High Court for such an offence. However, there are lower levels of offending where it will be appropriate for an out-of-court disposal to be used. That is what we are trying to do. We are widening the PSNI's toolkit in terms of the resource that it has to put into investigating and prosecuting such issues, to ensure that it is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. This gives them the discretion to do that.
200 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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.85 | 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 | 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.