Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Providing evidence today are Lisa Rocks, director of the justice performance team at the DOJ; Barry Doran, justice performance team; Gary McDonald, chief superintendent, PSNI; and Peter Luney, senior assistant director in the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).

Gary and Peter, you are coming under deep suspicion for being at the Committee far too often. I suspect that I will need to keep an eye on that. You are welcome to the Committee.

Lisa, I guess you have an opening statement.

Ms Lisa Rocks (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to talk to the Committee about the consultation on expanding the out-of-court disposals project. I will keep my opening remarks brief to allow time for questions.

I am the director of justice performance in the Department of Justice. I lead on the speeding up justice programme, in which the out-of-court disposals project is one of five interlinked projects. As I turn to introduce Gary and Peter, I now feel that they need no introduction, but I am joined by Gary McDonald, who leads the cross-justice out-of-court disposals working group, and Peter Luney, who, as you know, is a senior assistant director at the PPS, which is a key partner in the development of the proposals. Gary, Peter and I are members of the cross-justice programme board, along with members of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) and the Lady Chief Justice's office. That board is driving forward transformation of the criminal justice system to reduce avoidable delay. I am also joined by Barry Doran, who is the speeding up justice programme manager.

First, it is important that I set the work in the context of the wider programme. I appreciate that the Committee has heard from criminal justice partners in the past weeks about the challenges around delay and the ongoing work to address that. Hopefully, that provided some useful context to the work on out-of-court disposals. Expanding the use of out-of-court disposals is an essential part of the wider speeding up justice programme of work aimed at reducing delay across the justice system, which is a key priority of the Minister and the Criminal Justice Board (CJB) and a Programme for Government (PFG) commitment. The project and the consultation are in line with the Programme for Government commitment that requires the Department to:

That work is also one element of the programme funded through the public-sector transformation fund, which will help us to drive the pace of much-needed system change. Each project in the programme has a Criminal Justice Board sponsor to drive it forward. In the case of out-of-court disposals, the PSNI Chief Constable is the sponsor, and the work is taken forward by all criminal justice partners working together to agree and drive change.

To deliver the various projects and expected benefits within the wider programme, there needs to be sufficient capacity within the criminal justice system, which is why it is important to find ways to ease the pressure on the Magistrates' Courts. Out-of-court disposals are a mechanism whereby there can be a more proportionate approach to lower-level offending, which should reduce the demand on the court system at the earliest point. That will help to use resources more efficiently and to maintain system capacity particularly to deal with the most serious offences.

There are four other, interlinked projects under the programme, which, when combined, would see whole-system change. The early engagement project sponsored by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) supports earlier collaboration across the justice system, particularly police, prosecutors and defence, to ensure that cases are better prepared at the outset. Under committal reform, sponsored by the Department, the second phase, direct committal, is due to commence later this year so that indictable-only cases reach the Crown Court at a much earlier stage. To manage the additional pressure on the Crown Court, the Department and criminal justice partners, with the sponsorship of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) chief executive, are exploring the expansion of Magistrates' Courts powers. That change would allow certain lower-level cases that currently go to the Crown Court to be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court instead, and, in doing so, it is expected to free up Crown Court capacity and enable timely progression of the more serious cases. Those projects are supported by the digital work stream, aimed at enhancing digital operations across the system.

Hopefully, that provides some context for the proposals in terms of the wider programme. I turn to the consultation itself, which closed on 28 September. It has taken some time to collate the findings and consider next steps due to the number and variety of responses received. We have provided the Committee with a summary of the responses received and some accompanying briefing, which has, hopefully, been helpful in providing detail on views on the proposals, the engagement undertaken and the Minister's views on the next steps at this point. We welcome your views today on the proposals to inform decisions on the way ahead.

One of the key areas of the consultation focused on proposals to expand the PSNI's powers to issue penalty notices for a broader range of offences as well as to increase penalty amounts. Penalty notices were legislated for in the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to provide an alternative to prosecution for first-time or non-habitual offenders, and offences and amounts have not changed since that legislation was introduced in 2011. Today, we will focus on the offences that could make the most meaningful impact in reducing pressure on the Magistrates' Court and on key justice agencies. They include common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH), assault on police, and possession of a class A, class B or class C controlled drug. Together, those offences could take up to 1,300 cases out of the Magistrates' Court each year, based on 2024 data.

We acknowledge concerns about expanding some of the disposals, such as AOABH and assault on police. Following consultation, there was limited support for making AOABH — that is really hard to say

— eligible for a penalty notice. While a small number of cases may have been suitable, the overall benefits were minimal. The Minister, on the advice of the PSNI-led working group, has therefore decided not to proceed with adding that to the offence list.

Another proposal that attracted attention was in relation to making assault on police a penalty notice offence. Consultation responses were mixed, and some concerns were expressed. However, the Minister, on the advice of the PSNI-led working group, has decided to proceed with adding assault on police to the penalty notice offence list, and that approach was agreed by the Criminal Justice Board.

The police already have the option to deal with the lower-level assaults through a community resolution notice (CRN), which allows conditions to be set but does not include a fine other than reparations. The Committee can be assured that the proposals do not downplay assaults on police. They are designed to ensure that officers have effective tools, appropriate deterrents and efficient pathways to deal with lower-level incidents. The PSNI-led working group proposes a £150 penalty notice, which reflects one of the highest fine tiers available.

On drug possession, our proposals focus solely on cases involving small quantities that are for personal use, which the PSNI already frequently disposes of through CRNs under existing guidance from 2011. Allowing the PSNI to issue penalty notices in those circumstances would provide a clearer and more meaningful sanction. We are keen to hear the Committee's views, following which we will consider any feedback. If there is broad support, we will aim to finalise proposals with a view to bringing an SL1 to the Committee in due course.

From your briefing pack, you will have seen that the consultation also sought views on strengthening the legislation on prosecutorial fines (PFs) to make them more viable as an out-of-court disposal option. Those proposals, which are designed to replicate common court outcomes in such cases, would provide public prosecutors with the power to issue penalty points in combination with a prosecutorial fine. Informed by the out-of-court disposals working group, the Minister has welcomed the support for the proposals and intends to bring forward legislation in the next mandate to empower prosecutors to issue penalty points alongside a prosecutorial fine and to increase the maximum fine to £500.

Hopefully, the briefing has provided the Committee with a reasonable overview of the proposals. We welcome the Committee's views on the proposals that we have outlined: first, to give powers to the PSNI to issue penalty notices for the five new offences and increase the penalty amounts for existing offences across two tiers, which are £120 and £150; secondly, to bring forward primary legislation to strengthen prosecutorial fine legislation by increasing the maximum fine amount that a prosecutor can issue and enabling the PPS to issue penalty points in combination with a prosecutorial fine for a low-level motoring offence.

I will stop there, and I am open to any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Lisa, for the detail in your presentation and for being succinct.

I have a question about the table that shows cases disposed at Magistrates' Courts in Northern Ireland in 2023. At the right-hand side, there are two columns: percentage of convictions resulting in a monetary penalty only; and percentage of convictions resulting in a monetary penalty plus another disposal. Another column must be required. For example, there were 5,337 violence against the person cases; the percentage of total Magistrates' Courts caseload was 18·1%; the number of convictions was 3,502; but 17·4% of convictions resulted in a monetary penalty only and 2·1% in a monetary penalty plus another disposal. Where is the rest of the 100%? There must be another column.

Ms Rocks: I need my glasses.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will read down the table: 51·6% of controlled drugs convictions resulted in a monetary penalty only and 0·2% resulted in a monetary penalty plus another disposal. Further down, 11·7% of theft convictions were a monetary penalty only and 4·5% were a monetary penalty plus another disposal.

Mr Peter Luney (Public Prosecution Service): I will speculate that, because the focus is on penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) and prosecutorial fines, the figures relate only to the cases where monetary penalties plus something else were imposed. The cases that incurred a custodial sentence, a suspended sentence or a discharge, but no monetary penalty, are probably not set out in the table. If you want the fuller table, we could produce that.

Ms Rocks: There is something on the left of the table that mentions the PPS decisions issued. The prosecutions and the convictions do not necessarily relate to the same year. We will come back properly to the question in writing.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Let me play the mathematical devil, which is not in me. Take "violence against the person": 17·4% was a monetary penalty only and 2·1% was a monetary penalty plus another disposal, which gives me a total of 19·5%. Therefore, 80% of violence against the person cases ended up in something other than a monetary disposal.

Mr Luney: That is how I interpret that. You could have a range of community orders — probation, community service, custodial orders, suspended custodial orders, absolute discharges or conditional discharges — but, rather than have me speculating, we will get the full figures.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That brings me to my point, which is that, if you end those offences at the discretion of a police officer, you rule out the array of all the other disposals.

Mr Luney: That assumes that we are saying that PNDs or prosecutorial fines will be the only ways in which those offences will be dealt with. However, the prosecutor or the police officer will understand from the guidance that a range of disposal options is available, and, where it is not appropriate to deal with an offence just by way of a monetary penalty, they will submit a summons or an investigation file to go down the court route.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Gary, you guys have been presented as being, as the Minister is, positive on this and, if you like, cheerleading on it. Where do you see the percentage coming in for discretion being used by police officers on the ground?

Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald (Police Service of Northern Ireland): In the area that we are focusing on, it is that 21%. I have the figures here on the specific offences that we propose for penalty notices for disorder, and I am looking at the common assault figures, for example. We are asking, "Where is the area of opportunity for freeing up capacity across the court system?", and that is where, we think, it is. We will prosecute the other cases that Peter talked about, such as the cases that will potentially end up in a custodial sentence, all day long at the conclusion of the investigation of the offence. We are simply adding a tool to the toolbox for an officer in appropriate cases of lower-level incidents where, perhaps, there is a first-time offender: there will be an option for an officer, having considered all the circumstances of the case, to issue a penalty notice for disorder.

At last week's Committee meeting, we talked about delay and our case management teams. There is an opportunity to free up capacity with the 20% of cases that we see where, at the end of the investigation, we complete a file — well, for a start, that has to be built by our front-line officers — that is then submitted to the Public Prosecution Service, and there is a whole process that ultimately results in getting only a monetary penalty at court that is aligned with the median fines issued at the Magistrates' Court, which is how we have aligned the increase in the penalty notices. That is the space where we see a potential opportunity with penalty notices. At the minute, we have no option in those cases. There is a significant gap between a community resolution notice and a prosecution. We are trying to fill that gap with cases at the appropriate level. It is important to say, however, that it is an additional tool. It will not mandate officers to go down a penalty notice route for such offences. It will not say that that is the only route for officers to take: absolutely not.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I get the discretion, the additional tool in the toolbox aspect and the issue of police officers on the ground seeing and knowing things better, but what is to stop pressure from being applied on the officer to deal with offences through an out-of-court disposal because it is easier for everyone?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: If the legislation passes, that will come formally by way of operational guidance that we will create for officers. There is no pressure from a senior management perspective, if you like. Specific parameters will be placed around the issuing of penalty notices, as there are, for example, for community resolution notices. That is not new to us as an organisation, and it will not be new for officers on the ground who are used to issuing, for example, community resolution notices or to recommending diversion in appropriate cases. There are specific criteria that must be met before a community resolution notice can be issued, and I imagine that we will do the same for a penalty notice. It will be for lower-level cases. We will create the criteria and the operational guidance around that, and, as an organisation, we will ensure compliance with that guidance through our performance frameworks and our quality assurance mechanisms, dip-sampling and supervision. There will be no pressure to issue a discretionary disposal — a community resolution notice or a penalty notice — where it is not appropriate to do so, because, ultimately, that will be counterproductive for the victim, the offender, the wider justice system and confidence in policing more generally. [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What about the pressure on a police officer who has been the victim?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Assault on police? Is that what you are getting at?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: The investigation for assault on a police officer will be the same as any other investigation, in line with our nine-point plan: the view of the victim will be taken into account. There will be guidance on the proportionality of the particular outcome of assault on police. There will be guidance on the level of injury, for example, because we have received clear representation from the Police Federation for Northern Ireland and others that significant injury is not in the space of disposal when it comes to assault on police. Significant injury would automatically be taken out of the space of disposal: we would pursue arrest and prosecution for more serious offences such as that. The officer's views will absolutely be taken into account. For example, if they are clear that they wish to proceed with a prosecution, their wishes will be respected.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I interrupted you, Lisa; sorry.

Ms Rocks: I was just going to mention the wider governance mechanisms around that. For example, the out-of-court disposals working group will continue to monitor the various out-of-court disposals, monitoring trends and looking at them in line with the offences. It will focus on the data piece. If there are outliers, there are governance measures that go through programme boards. It is very much a cross-justice project, and we will monitor it as and when it develops.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will add to that. I talked about the quality assurance mechanisms for community resolution notices. The PPS dip samples some of our decision-making to ensure that it is appropriate and that nothing slips through that should have gone to prosecution. That practice is up and running for community resolution notices, and we intend to replicate it for penalty notices for disorder.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you all for taking part in the exhaustive questioning session.

There is a perception of mixed messaging. In the sentencing Bill that the Minister is bringing forward, there is a specific offence of assaults on front-line workers. The Chair interrogated the fixed penalty notice for assault on police and the different considerations with that. Is there a contradiction there? How will that pan out?

Ms Rocks: That is a good question that goes back to the point about the toolkit. It is about the various available options. It is absolutely the case that the Minister is keen to have harsher sentencing in cases where the offence is greater; the lower-level offending is on the opposite side of the scale. It is at the police's discretion which of those to use, but it is another tool in the toolkit.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will add to that. There is almost a dual approach. The last thing that I want to do is to undermine the Police Federation's "Let them Protect" campaign for stopping assaults on police officers. As a police officer, I do not want to undermine that messaging: of course, assaults on police should be taken seriously. Part of that is giving officers the tools to deal with it, and part of it is speeding up the justice system. Assault on police has been a disposal, through community resolution notices, since 2016. What that essentially means is potentially asking for an apology from the subject or the suspect as part of the community resolution notice; it can attract no fine. That is the gap that we talked about: after a community resolution notice, the next thing is prosecution.

We have engaged with the Police Federation, which is doing further consultation on the specific proposal. It has agreed to work with us on what its operationalisation will look like; for example, on threshold of injury. We have had clear feedback from front-line officers that the penalty notice would be a useful tool in those lower-level cases where somebody is not a repeat offender and there is a low level of injury. It can be quite effective to be able to issue, there and then, a penalty notice of, for example, £150, rather than waiting six months for it to go to court. That is for those appropriate offences.

Ms Sheerin: I can definitely see the rationale for that, particularly if there is a situation where somebody lashes out in the heat of the moment and there is no clear intention. Instead of allowing it to escalate through the passage of time and for resentment and all those things to build up, it might be more effective to say, "Right, we're going to draw a line under this, here and now". One of the fears that we had when we were talking about the offence of assaults on front-line workers was the potential of creating a hierarchy of victims. However, I understand the rationale that you laid out.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: There is a twin approach to the issue, and that is a good counterargument to any argument that there might be about us minimising assault on police. We are seeking to strengthen the sentencing in appropriate cases. It goes back to having the toolkit for what is appropriate in the circumstances of the case and allowing and trusting police officers to make the appropriate judgement.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): A lot of the offences will be on the spot and clear-cut, but what happens if there is a suspicion around guilt? What does the police officer do in that situation?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It is only for cases where there is clear culpability. An offender does not have to accept the penalty notice: they can contest it. Someone always has the right to a trial and to go to court. There cannot be any doubt about it: the officer needs to have the evidence to be able to issue it, and it comes only at the conclusion of an investigation when that aspect is satisfied.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK.

Mr Kingston: We appreciate the aim of trying to speed up the justice system and to reduce the number of cases going to court, but there is a need for deterrents and the appropriate level of punishment for crime in the interests of public confidence. We are concerned about common assault and, in particular, assault on police being dealt with through a penalty notice. You have said that there is a lower threshold for dealing with it as a community resolution notice. You have explained the rationale for dealing with it as a penalty notice as an out-of-court disposal. At this stage, we are not persuaded by that. We are mindful of the intention for the sentencing Bill to make assaults on front-line workers a more serious offence and to have an aggregator for that. It is about the public perception of what is considered a serious crime; likewise for common assault. It is about where the line is drawn and the public messaging of reducing deterrents. It is the same with riotous behaviour, and we have seen that this year. Quite often, riotous behaviour ends up in assaults on the police, and I have been in many situations where that has occurred, trying to reduce it.

We accept that it can be an effective tool for some lower-level offences, such as lower-level drug possession, but only as part of a package of behaviour-changing education. For antisocial behaviour and motoring offences, there must be the proviso that the individual case can be assessed to see whether something more serious is required so that it is not seen as an easy way out. People often feel that there has not been a consequence.

We do not see it as the sole solution for speeding up justice. We should be ensuring that files are prepared as expeditiously as possible and are ready when the case goes to court; it should not be about just reducing the level at which cases go to court. That is our overall position on the matter. We are concerned about the public messaging and the deterrent value.

I am interested to know whether you, Gary, from a police point of view, have had feedback on concern about a change to the public perception of assault on police if the offence is dealt with through an out-of-court disposal.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: There are a number of points there.

I reiterate that all the previous disposals and options are still on the table. If somebody needs to be prosecuted, given the circumstances of the case, for a common assault offence, they will be prosecuted. It is about tapping into the 18%, 19% or 20% of demand that will ultimately result in a monetary-only penalty at court. Over the past number of years, the median fine received at the Magistrates' Court for common assault is £200. It is essentially about getting to the same outcome more quickly.

There are all sorts of theories about deterrence. A swift outcome can be seen as beneficial from the offender's point of view, and there is other evidence, which, I am sure, Lisa can speak to, on how out-of-court disposals are effective as deterrents. That is just to make the point that it is an additional tool to fill a gap and that it will be appropriate —.

Mr Kingston: How do you make the distinction? You say that, if the change is made, some common assault offences will still go to court but others that would have gone to court will not do so. Those cases will just end up in a fine, having been sped up through an out-of-court disposal.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: That will come down to the guidance that we, as the organisation, will write. An example could be —.

Mr Kingston: I am sorry to interrupt. Who would make that decision? The police, the PPS or —?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: The PPS and the DOJ are part of the working group, and we will have our staff associations — the Police Federation, NIPSA etc — to help. I have written to those bodies, offering them a role in helping us to write the guidance. To bring it to life with an example, the case could be one of a first-time offender and a low-level common assault without injury. In our professional judgement, if such a case were to go to court and end in conviction, it is likely that the penalty would be monetary only. That is the space that we are in.

When it comes to the offence of assault on police, as I have said, as a serving police officer, I do not want to undermine ongoing campaigns such as Let Them Protect or the significance of an assault on a police officer in the course of their duty. We have engaged with the federation on that. It is doing wider consultation and is aware of the consultation on the proposal. I have invited it to come on board and help us to write the guidance, including on what would be acceptable and what would not and the level of injury that we are talking about — that is all up for discussion — and to decide what it should look like.

Given that there is a community resolution notice disposal for assault on police and that the next step up is prosecution, there is a gap that, in the appropriate circumstances, we have an opportunity to fill, considering everything that I have said about the swiftness of the penalty being a deterrent.

File quality was the other point. We do not suggest for one second that that is the panacea or a silver bullet for speeding up justice. In the grand scheme of things, only a small proportion of the overall caseload goes to the Magistrates' Court, but the work on that is one part of a broader suite of options that we are looking at, from the remit of the Magistrates' Court to early engagement.

We talked last week about the ongoing digital work, including that on use of AI and on file quality. In a way, the proposals are about trying to free up a bit of capacity for our front-line officers. Not creating and pushing through the system to the PPS files on offences that will end up in a similar monetary disposal will allow officers to concentrate on the files that are going for prosecution — to contest — and the domestic abuse and sexual crime files that we need to improve. That is the theory behind what we are trying to do.

Mr Kingston: Did you say that an out-of-court disposal can be an on-the-spot fine? Are you suggesting that, if someone gets worked up and shoves or punches a police officer, the officer would issue a fine there and then? I am just trying to think how that would work. In many such tense situations, it might not be possible.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: How that is managed would always be at the officer's discretion. You are right, and I accept that it might not be the most appropriate time to issue it, but, ultimately, that is what a penalty notice is: you are given a ticket and you have 28 days to pay it. The disposal could be done from the custody suite or when things have calmed down at the end of an incident. Officers are used to dealing with situations through a range of disposals.

Ms Rocks: I will focus on a data point. More widely, the reoffending statistics show that, with the use of diversionary disposal, the rate of reoffending is 16%. It is 46% for custodial disposals and 28·5% for community service notices. The evidence points towards diversionary disposals having a lower rate of reoffending.

It is important to say that it is about the tools in the toolbox, but I will go back to the statistics for a moment. It takes 630 days to get sexual offences cases through the Crown Court. Gary alluded to there being a number of pieces of the jigsaw. If we can provide tools to reduce the volume of cases going through the courts, that will create capacity for the more serious cases, which simply take too long.

That is not to say that we do not need the right controls to be in place. The PSNI has strong governance, and the cross-Justice groups will use data to monitor the expanded use of the disposals. If we go down that route, there will be a process of continuous improvement so that, if something has unintended consequences, we will revisit it. At present, the data points towards such disposals being part of the wider work of reducing avoidable delay in the criminal justice system.

Mr Kingston: What stats did you read out?

Ms Rocks: The reoffending statistics give a rate of 16% where there has been a diversionary disposal, 46% for those who have had a custodial sentence and 28·5% for those who have been dealt with in the community.

Mr Kingston: OK. That is partly because custodial sentences are, presumably, for a higher level of offence —

Ms Rocks: Yes.

Mr Kingston: — and those offenders may be more prone to carrying out offences.

Ms Rocks: Yes.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Ms Egan: I am looking at the table on page 6 of the analysis of responses to the consultation. Why is there such a disparity between some of the answers from individuals and those from organisations? Did you drill into that when you evaluated the consultation?

Ms Rocks: There is a mixture. We did qualitative and quantitative analysis, and we decided to not necessarily focus on organisations over individuals. We went through the responses in detail. It appeared from the qualitative information provided by some of those who responded that they did not quite understand the nature of the consultation and perhaps thought that it was a matter of choosing between a custodial sentence and other things.

It is important to look at the results under "Yes" and "Unsure/Unanswered" in the table. We are focusing on the strong thoughts in support of the "No" position while taking on board the qualitative analysis. It was that comprehensive work that led us to the proposals that we have brought forward through the working group.

Ms Egan: That is important. You have reiterated that this is just one option; it is not the only option.

How will the penalty notices interact with criminal records? Would you get a criminal record if you were given a penalty notice?

Ms Rocks: You would not have a criminal record, but you would have criminal history: if you interacted with the justice system again, that would be in your criminal history.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It would be part of a police record and could be disclosed in an enhanced check for employment involving regulated activity, for example, but there would not be a criminal conviction.

Ms Egan: Will they be similar to notices for traffic offences?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes — and community resolution notices.

Ms Egan: From the perspective of the police and the PPS, how much capacity in our court system will that free up? I understand the argument that it takes cases months to go through the court system only to end up in a similar fine. How much capacity will that free up to focus on the more serious offences?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will start with the police perspective, and Peter can speak from a PPS perspective. There are a number of opportunities. It is not just about the cases that go to court and end with a monetary-only penalty, because we submit cases to the PPS that involve a decision on another diversionary disposal, such as an informed warning or an adult caution, and there is also potential in those cases.

There were 1,295 cases of the offences that are proposed to be included that resulted in a monetary-only penalty; that is the space that we are in. There are other offences under the heading of diversionary disposals: there were 930 such disposals in 2023 and 768 in 2024. Again, each of those is the result of an investigation, the submission of a file and a PPS decision that the case does not need to go to court and could be dealt with by a disposal.

It comes back to the gap that I talked about. We could lean in to the demand in that gap by using a penalty notice in a proportion of those cases. Taking out those two types of case in that way could remove up to 8% of Magistrates' Court demand. That does not include the potential effect of our work on prosecutorial fines, which leans in to a lot more cases.

Mr Luney: The legislation does not prescribe or limit the kinds of offences that prosecutorial fines can be used for; it just states that they can be used for summary offences. The data that was put before the Committee shows that motoring offences make up a lot of the Magistrates' Courts' workload. Instinctively, that is where, we think, the prosecutorial fines, if we can attach penalty points to them, will be of most benefit. According to the figures for the year that you were given, there were 13,668 motoring cases in Magistrates' Courts, which made up almost half their workload.

Just over 6,000 of those cases were dealt with by way of a monetary penalty and penalty points only. That is the category of case that we will probably focus on for prosecutorial fines. How many of those cases could be successfully dealt with by a PF? We need to gather more data on that. In the coming months, we will run a shadow exercise in which we will ask prosecutors, when they are taking prosecution decisions, to indicate whether a prosecutorial fine of up to £500, with the associated penalty points, would have been an appropriate disposal. That will give us richer data that we can feed into the Department when it drafts legislative changes. That is the core caseload that we will be focusing on trying to take out.

Ms Egan: That is helpful. Thank you.

Mr Bradley: I hope that I am not putting a dampener on things, but I have a lot of concerns. Class A, class B and class C drugs are illegal — you cannot buy them in a chemist — so, the minute that they are purchased, a crime has been committed. Who are they purchased from? I cannot talk about a live case, but there are three cases in my town that involve low-level drug users who are before the courts, having been charged with very serious crimes. However, they are low-level users, so they will probably get a slap on the wrist.

A lot of people come to my constituency office to complain about having to live beside drug users. They complain about the smell coming from the house next door, which affects the mother and her children. However, the drug users are low-level users, so they will get a slap on the wrist.

My 22-year-old niece — my cousin — was killed by a drunk driver. That was 25 years ago, but it still runs very deep, so I do not see any sense in giving people who commit motoring offences a slap on the wrist — far from it.

What are you going to do about common assault? Confidence in the PSNI's ability to deal with that sort of stuff is already low. Someone might say to the police, "That boy down there hit my son", or, "That boy hit my brother", or whatever. You are setting yourselves up for that someone's saying, "He got a slap on the wrist from the PSNI; we'll get him some night and give him a slap round the ears". What you are trying to do causes me a lot of problems. Yes, you are trying to save time in the courts, but you are not doing the PSNI's image any good, and you are not doing any good for the defendants or those who are victims of crime. You need to go back and think about this all over again.

I think of a young girl who was standing outside a pub in Coleraine — she is 4 feet 2 inches in height and very finely built — when she was pulled to the ground by her hair. A woman danced on her head and she ended up in casualty. The PSNI was involved, but she had to chase it to get any information about what was happening with her assault case. She was told, "It's all right; that was dealt with by way of a resolution order". There was no apology — nothing. The whole thing that you are proposing is brilliant on paper but falls down in reality. My view and that of my party, which I have pushed it to take, is this: we reject it completely. I am sorry for giving off, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No problem. Do you have a question?

Mr Bradley: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Just to make everyone aware, the party has submitted an initial response to the consultation. Is there anything that you want to address there?

Mr Luney: We run the risk of repeating ourselves by talking about tools that are available while making sure that all the other disposals are still available. Some of the examples that you gave, such as the drunk driving, are not within the scope of either of the things that we are talking about, because that carries a mandatory disqualification. There are clear circumstances in which the only route is to go to court.

When we were here last week, we talked about the need for structural reform: to get the most serious cases to the Crown Court more quickly; to change the remit of the Magistrates' Court to take the middle cadre of cases down to be dealt with by professional judges; and to find ways of taking the properly low-level offences out of the Magistrates' Court to create capacity for all those other steps to take place. That is what this is about. If we say — "cherry-pick" is not the right term — "We like that bit, but the other bit is not as palatable", we run the risk of undermining the package of measures.

However, I understand entirely where you are coming from and why the examples that you referred to, particularly the case of the young girl, cause frustration. If any of the reforms move forward, it will be important to monitor them rigorously and ensure that the guidance is robust, so that everybody applies it consistently. There are ways of implementing the structural changes effectively, but I agree that, if it is done wrongly, there is a risk of undermining confidence in the courts, the PPS and the police.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will briefly comment on that. I am sorry to hear about your niece.

Mr Bradley: It was my cousin.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Sorry: your cousin.

When it comes to the example that you gave, gratuitous violence such as that is out the window: that is not what we are talking about. If the case that you have described is being dealt with through a community resolution notice, I will be happy to look at that for you, Maurice, because that is not in the spirit of the guidance on community resolution notices or on penalty notices for disorder and is not what we are talking about here. I just needed to come back on that.

To offer you reassurance more broadly, in addition to what Peter has said, we will have mechanisms in place for the quality assurance of the implementation and the monitoring and review mechanisms. As I said, we bring the PPS in to dip-sample our decisions. That is just to add that there will also be an element of quality assurance.

Ms Rocks: On your point about drugs, we are focusing on low-level offences. It is about the language that is used, because the definition of "low-level" can be broad, but we are talking about first-time, non-habitual cases. In the drugs example that you gave, if the person comes into contact with us for a second time, they have gone beyond that early stage. It is about being really careful that it is used for such non-habitual, first-time use.

Mr Barry Doran (Department of Justice): I will respond on the victims element. We engaged with victims and victims' groups as part of the consultation. We met the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime to discuss the proposals, and we met a range of victims' organisations in person. Extern, Women's Aid and Victim Support NI provided written responses to the consultation. The key concern raised by those organisations, from the victims' perspective, was the need for clear guidance and appropriate thresholds to make sure that the penalty notices are issued correctly and utilised in the right way.

Ms Rocks: We said that we will evaluate the effect of any proposals to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, and we will take any corrective action that is needed.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): There is a pressure that comes from your trying too hard to run the court system efficiently and effectively, and that will have a bearing on how effective the tool will be. We are concerned about that.

Maurice, are you done?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

Mr McGlone: I have been listening carefully, and I am intrigued to hear how this will work in practice. I have a question about a client who is up for common assault or assault on police for a second, third, fourth or fifth time. Going by the words that you used, I take it that that person would not be under consideration for a penalty notice.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: No.

Mr McGlone: Not at all?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: That is correct.

Mr McGlone: That is OK.

I also listened carefully to what Lisa said about diversionary measures and repeat offending. Surely, those diversionary measures are for the low-level things — first-timers and the like — in which case, should that really be a surprise? I will leave it there. It should not be a surprise that there is a low rate of reoffending: if they are first-timers and have had a rap across the knuckles, or whatever you want to call it, I would expect that to be the case. If the rate were sitting at 50% or 60%, I would be saying, "There's something really wired up with the justice system". As you have probably gathered, I do not accept that as evidence for or against but just as a statement of fact; I would expect it to be the case anyway.

Brian was teasing out what the benchmark or who the arbiter is for common assault or assault on police — it would also apply to assault on a nurse, an ambulance worker, Fire and Rescue Service personnel or someone in another role like that. Who is the arbiter in that case? Is it left to an individual constable to decide, "Right, we'll go for the penalty notice here"? I will give a specific example that has been running through my mind: possession of a class A controlled drug. Is it 1 oz, 2 oz or 3 oz of heroin? Who is the arbiter for that? Who makes the decision in that case? Surely, there are specific — I will not say "guidelines" — regulations on that. I am intrigued by that, because, again, one person's "possession" could be another person's "supply", if you get where I am going with this.

Something that people may not consider is whether a penalty notice is declarable on the likes of an ESTA application for travel to the US or a visa for other countries. From my experience, some people are not aware that that is the case.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: I will start. The arbiter will be the officer on the ground, supported by supervision and operational guidance. You asked about the possession of drugs. That is a really good question and a good example. The specific drugs and the specific eligibility criteria will be set out. For example, for class C drugs, where there more than 28 tablets of diazepam, a notice cannot be applied, because anything more than that takes you out of the remit of the notices and into the realm of prosecution. It will be similar for the penalty notices for disorder. It will all be set out, with operational guidance and parameters making it clear what is and is not in scope.

Mr McGlone: Twenty-eight tablets is probably a month's supply, prescribed by a doctor. Have you got an example of possession of class A drugs?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes. For cocaine, if a community resolution notice is to be used, the maximum is 5 g.

Mr McGlone: OK. Does that CRN read across to a penalty notice?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Does it? Aye.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It is to be finalised, obviously, but that is the current guidance. Maybe we can share the latest version with you. I am conscious that this is going out publicly.

Mr McGlone: I get that, but I presume that the PPS knows about those guidelines, so —

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, absolutely.

Mr McGlone: — I expect that you can trust us with them.

My final query is about the declaration of a penalty notice by someone who is planning to travel overseas. Is that declarable or not?

Ms Rocks: I do not know, so I cannot give a specific answer, but I am happy to come back to you in writing. My understanding is that there would be access to criminal history through AccessNI, so it would depend on the nature of the search. I cannot answer specifically on the travel example. It would depend on what the concerns were, but I am happy to come back to you in writing.

Mr McGlone: Say that someone applies for a job and they go for the AccessNI assessment, evaluation, declaration or whatever you want to call it. Will their penalty notice be listed in that?

Ms Rocks: Yes.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It depends on the check. There are different levels of AccessNI checks, depending on the role that you apply for. The enhanced check is for roles involving regulated activity. If you work with children and vulnerable people, for example, you will be subject to an enhanced check, and that information may be disclosed.

Ms Rocks: May I clarify the point on the reoffending data? I said that the rate was about 16%. That means that, of the offenders who received the diversionary disposal, only 16% reoffended. Yes, we would like to think that, given that it is low-level offending, people will not reoffend, but we would not want to see a higher figure, because that would indicate that more serious sanctions need to be applied.

Mr McGlone: Exactly.

Ms Rocks: Yes.

Mr McGlone: That is grand. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Everyone who indicated that they would like to ask questions has done so. Thank you very much for your time and attendance today.

Ms Rocks: Thank you.