Debate contribution: Out-of-Court Disposals: Consultation
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Out-of-Court Disposals: Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5269203
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Officials are analysing responses to the out-of-court disposals consultation, which invited views on a number of the proposals aimed at tackling delays in the justice system. As is commonplace in the justice system, many of the offences put forward in the proposals are broad in nature and can cover a wide range of offending behaviour from the minor to the major. The broad nature of those cases is evidenced through the options available for dealing with a case, whether by prosecution in either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court, which can vary significantly in penalties. That is to be borne in mind, because it is has been raised a lot that penalty notices will in some way be a lighter-touch option. The PSNI will often not proceed with the cases for which we recommend that penalty notices may be of use because it lacks the capacity to prepare the files or because there is a lack of will, even, frankly, on the part of those who have been injured, to go through the hoops. It can often be the thing that gets dropped when the case goes to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) because it does not think that there will be an opportunity to get a significant penalty at court. If a case makes it through all those hoops and gets to court, often it is dismissed with a fine anyway. We propose that, in cases in which a fine is the most likely outcome, we should simply allow the PSNI to issue a fine and cut out all that middle work, which is consuming resources and time for everyone concerned.
273 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 14:03 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.