Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 151.
“Prison staff, as you know, are members of the Civil Service. That being the case, they are dealt with through Civil Service HR mainstream procedures. However, the support offered to them by the Prison Service itself has been enhanced during my term in office. Initiatives have been introduced on peer support; counselling and access to counselling; enhanced access to the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT), for example, so that those who are, for any reason, exiting the service or require rehabilitation or occupational therapy are able to access that in a safe and secure way. There have been significant improvements, but it would be wrong to suggest that we are at the end of a process.”
“Exit interviews are offered to all staff who leave the Prison Service to help the service to get a better understanding of the reasons for leaving and to address any issues raised that can further improve retention rates.”
“The only challenge facing the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) in relation to recruitment and retention is uncertainty around funding to allow them to recruit in sufficient numbers to respond to the rising prison population. The Prison Service has no difficulty attracting applicants, with 525 individuals recruited into operational roles since June 2021. Their assessment process is robust, and staff are supported through a range of well-being initiatives, both in the workplace and when they are absent for work-related or non-work-related reasons. <BR /> <BR />Staff retention rates in the Prison Service compare favourably with similar organisations. There has been a significant reduction in the number leaving over the last four years from 103 in 2022 to 60 in 2025.”
“While there is no straight-line approach to dealing with the issues of substance misuse and addiction, the programme allows people who are in a position to do so to maximise the support that is available to them to desist from their addiction and the offending behaviour that initially brought them before the courts.”
“Yes. As I said, set criteria are available for referrals to the Substance Misuse Court, and defendants can be assessed as not being suitable. After a four-week engagement programme, they are assessed to see whether they are in a position to engage effectively with the programme. It is only after that initial screening and assessment period that a defendant will be accepted on to the programme. That individual will be required to attend court and probation, initially weekly, and to engage in drug and alcohol testing and counselling or treatment. That will include undergoing psychological assessment and intervention, if appropriate. Participants can also be removed from the programme for a range of reasons.”
“Some of the work that we have been doing is being closely followed by colleagues in Scotland, who recognise that enhanced combination orders offer an alternative to dealing with some of the more complex recidivism in the criminal justice system whilst maintaining high levels of public protection.”
“Enhanced combination orders and the work in the Substance Misuse Courts are two separate things, but part of the challenge has been that, in order to pilot that work, much of the resource has gone through partners in the community and voluntary sector, as they deliver much of the care and intervention. There will be people referred to the Substance Misuse Court who, after a four-week period, may not be determined to be suitable, so it is only after that period that a defendant will be accepted on to the programme. There has to be a willingness on the part of defendants to engage with the programme substantively. In order for defendants to be accepted, they have to be in a position in their life at which they are able to do that effectively and efficiently. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to engage with the Member about ECOs.”
“I would prefer it if that were taken forward proactively by our healthcare system, because that is where the problem fundamentally lies and where the biggest change can be made, rather than waiting for people to find themselves in contact with the criminal justice system before we make such interventions.”
“The Substance Misuse Court issue goes much wider than the criminal aspect; it is about trying to tackle the underlying causes and complexities of addiction. It is often challenging to get people to break the cycle of addiction and related offending. The evidence from the evaluations to date shows that the Substance Misuse Court has been of use in getting people to engage with services, but it is well established that the first attempt at breaking people's addiction may not always be the successful one, particularly when it comes to substance misuse. It may take a number of attempts.”
“To date, two evaluations of the Substance Misuse Court have shown positive outcomes. Work is ongoing on its cost-effectiveness, and it is anticipated that the full evaluation will be completed by the end of June 2026. I fully endorse its use and effectiveness.”
“This extension will give us a suite of measures from the 2019 Act that we can properly commence in the next mandate, and, in the interim, enable us to have a scheme that allows people who have knives that will become illegal to dispose of them in an appropriate manner. I hope that Members are content to support the LCM.”
“I will not keep you long. Doug's brevity has put down a challenge for us all. <BR /> <BR />I want to say a couple of things. First, I totally agree that tying digital ID in with the Bill was a mistake that caused a degree of consternation. We are in danger, today, of agreeing too much: I do not know whether that does more damage to my reputation or Doug's. I am not in favour of compulsory ID or coercing people into having ID. Deirdre Hargey made the point about a lot of the Bill's content being things that we would not want to replicate, and I completely agree. However, as Connie Egan set out, the use of knives and crossbows is rising, and it is important to have more strictures around them.”
“Before I finish, I place on record my thanks to the Justice Committee and to my Executive colleagues for their consideration of the issues enclosed, as I know that it was done in a fairly short turnaround. I thank you for considering this, and I look forward to hearing any questions or comments that Members have.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be relieved to hear those words — I fully appreciate that the Assembly's preference is to legislate here in Northern Ireland on matters for Northern Ireland where possible, and that is my preference. This Bill, however, is in its final stages in Parliament, and, with the legislative constraints in the current mandate, it is not possible to bring equivalent provision via an Assembly Bill in the near future. Therefore, I believe that, on this occasion, it is appropriate that these amendments be made in a Westminster Bill, and I ask for the House's support in passing the motion.”
“This creates a range of offences and defences relating to the delivery of crossbows to premises following a remote sale equivalent to those for knives that I have just described. <BR /> <BR />A new section for Northern Ireland, "Sale and delivery of crossbows Northern Ireland: supplementary provision", will also be inserted, which will replicate section 35 for England and Wales. That new section will provide interpretation to the definitions used in relation to the new offences detailed above. It will also make general provision, including in respect of the Assembly procedure for regulations made under the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, as amended.”
“The new section also allows the Department of Justice to prescribe by regulations an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. Sellers will need to ensure that, when the package is being dispatched, it is clearly marked to indicate that it contains a crossbow or part of a crossbow and that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of the buyer. Did they take all reasonable precautions and exercise all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, it was given into the hands of the buyer and that the package would not be able to be delivered to a locker? A new section for Northern Ireland on delivery of crossbows will be inserted, which will replicate section 34 for England and Wales.”
“Clause 32 amends section 42 to capture all companies in the delivery chain and add more stringent requirements for defences to apply. <BR /> <BR />I move on to crossbows. A new section on remote sale and letting of crossbows will be inserted for Northern Ireland, replicating section 33 for England and Wales. This will put in place age verification requirements that sellers need to follow when selling or letting crossbows remotely to reduce the chances of persons under 18 being able to buy or let a crossbow. As with knives, the seller will be required to obtain from the buyer a copy of an identity document such as a passport or driving licence, issued to the buyer in a physical form, and a photograph of the buyer. On this basis of the things obtained, a reasonable person would need to be satisfied that that buyer was over 18.”
“Clause 32 also provides for a new offence for a collection point operator, or someone acting on their behalf, to hand over a bladed product to a person who is not an eligible person following a remote sale unless the specified collection conditions are met. The collection conditions will be that the person who collected the bladed product showed the individual giving them the bladed product an identity document, issued to them in physical form, and that, on the basis of that document, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that that person was over 18 and that, if the buyer was an individual, they were the buyer. Section 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 makes provision in relation to a new offence for delivery companies related to the delivery of bladed articles following remote sales by overseas sellers.”
“As I have mentioned, section 40 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 contained a range of defences to the offences provided for in section 39. Clause 32 amends section 40 of the 2019 Act to replace those defences with ones with more stringent requirements. For example, it will be a defence for a main contractor or subcontractor charged with an offence to show that the delivery conditions that I outlined were met. <BR /> <BR />In addition, clause 32 inserts a range of new offences into the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, relating to the delivery of bladed products to collection points. These offences capture sellers and all contractors in the delivery chain, making them responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age ID verification.”
“Where a sale is carried out remotely by a UK-based seller, or where a corporate body, such as a delivery company, has entered into arrangements with that seller to deliver the bladed products, section 39(6) of the 2019 Act, which, as I said, has not yet been commenced in Northern Ireland, currently provides for an offence for a delivery company to deliver them to someone under 18. However, it is recognised that there are situations in which the delivery company engaged by the seller to deliver the product may subcontract that delivery to other companies. We believe that it is essential that all companies in the chain are liable for prosecution if, when the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises, it is not delivered into the hands of a person aged 18 or over and if the buyer is an individual as opposed to a company.”
“Those delivery conditions are that the person finally delivering the bladed product was shown by the person into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to them in a physical form, or took such steps to verify their age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and that, on the basis of that document or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the person was over 18 and that, if the buyer was an individual, that that person was the buyer. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to the delivery of bladed products to persons under 18.”
“In addition, the UK-based seller will commit an offence under section 38(3) of the 2019 Act if, for the purposes of supplying the bladed product to the buyer, they deliver the product or arrange for its delivery to a locker. Defences for both offences are provided for in section 40 of the Act, but those are vague and do not provide sellers with clarity on what is actually required of them. <BR /> <BR />Clause 32 does not amend the offences, but it provides for replacement defences to place a more stringent requirement on sellers. For example, a seller charged under section 38(2) of the 2019 Act with an offence of delivering a bladed product to residential premises will need to show that certain delivery conditions have been met if they are to rely on the defence.”
“It is considered that those provisions need to be strengthened, as there have been instances where knives were delivered to lockers and residential premises without proper checks. <BR /> <BR />Clause 32 is complex and contains multiple provisions, which I will now summarise. I will begin with the delivery of bladed products to residential premises or lockers by UK sellers. Once the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is commenced in Northern Ireland, a UK-based seller will commit an offence under section 38(2) of the Act if, for the purposes of supplying the bladed product to the buyer, they deliver the bladed product or arrange for its delivery to residential premises.”
“On the basis of the ID and photograph, a reasonable person would need to have been satisfied that the buyer was aged 18 or over. The new clause also allows the Department of Justice to prescribe, by order, subject to draft affirmative procedure, that an alternative process for age verification can be used. That is to ensure that legislation keeps pace with future potential developments around ID. <BR /> <BR />Clause 32 deals with the delivery of knives and, subject to the agreement of the Assembly, will extend to Northern Ireland. Clause 32 amends sections 38 to 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which provides for several offences and defences relating to the delivery of knives bought remotely, which have not yet been commenced in Northern Ireland.”
“Condition C requires the seller to take all reasonable precautions and exercise all due diligence to ensure that, when the package is delivered, it is handed over to a person aged 18 or over. That applies whether the seller delivers the package themselves or through a third party. Condition D requires that the seller must not arrange the package to be delivered or deliver the package to a locker. <BR /> <BR />The new clause in the Crime and Policing Bill removes and replaces condition A to strengthen age verification requirements. Conditions B to D remain the same. Under the replacement condition A, the seller must obtain from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in physical form and a photograph of the buyer. The seller must be satisfied, on the basis of those items, that the buyer is over 18.”
“<BR /> <BR />The new article 54A, which will be added to the 1996 Order once section 37 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is commenced, sets out the conditions that must apply to prove the defence in the case of remote sales. Condition A requires the seller to operate an age verification system that is likely to prevent a person aged under 18 from buying a knife. That legislation and associated guidance, however, does not stipulate what such age verification should look like, meaning that there are no defined standards for sellers to meet. Condition B requires the seller to ensure that, when the article is dispatched, the package is clearly marked to indicate that it contains a bladed article and that it is also clearly marked that the package should not be delivered into the hands of a person under 18.”
“The overall aim of the provisions is to prevent knives and crossbows from getting into the hands of under-18s by linking the verified buyer at checkout with the person who receives the parcel. <BR /> <BR />Turning to each clause in turn, a new clause would be added to clause 31 of the Bill for Northern Ireland, mirroring that of clause 31 for England and Wales, which relates to remote sales of knives. It is already an offence under article 54(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to sell a knife and certain articles with a blade or point to persons under the age of 18. Article 54(4) of the 1996 Order provides a defence to that offence, where the person charged can prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.”
“<BR /> <BR />Separately, we plan to introduce secondary legislation in the next financial year to outlaw private ownership of offensive weapons, such as flick knives, zombie knives, machetes and ninja-style swords. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with other UK jurisdictions. An associated surrender and compensation scheme for such weapons will also launch in the next financial year. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the content of the LCM, the amended provisions would replace simple age checks with stricter two-step buyer verification checks at point of sale and point of delivery. Those provisions were the result of Commander Steve Clayman's independent end-to-end review of online knife sales, which was commissioned by the Home Secretary following the Southport attack in the summer of 2024.”
“<BR /> <BR />As part of that planned programme of work, the Department also intends to consult on whether further primary legislation relating to knives should be introduced in the next mandate; for example, a new power for police to seize, retain and destroy illegally held bladed articles held in private where the police are lawfully on private property, provisions to increase the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons and to create a new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence, and the offence of threatening with an offensive weapon or knife. <BR /> <BR />That approach would enable the provisions to be commenced as part of a composite package that the Assembly could consider as a whole, rather than adopting a piecemeal approach to commence what is a complex legislative reform piece.”
“<BR /> <BR />The provisions in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 have not yet been commenced for Northern Ireland. However, I consider it important to amend them through the Crime and Policing Bill so that they are robust and ready for implementation. My Department plans to progress an extensive programme of work in the next mandate to fully commence all the provisions. <BR /> <BR />Given the plans for the programme of work and the interconnected nature of the provisions, I believe that the best approach is for the amendments to the primary legislation related to age verification for the sale of knives and crossbows to be commenced as part of a single package of related measures in the next Assembly mandate.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department has engaged with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in relation to the amendments. The commission has advised that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) analysis provided by the UK Government appears to be broadly sound and that the provisions in the Bill, which will extend to Northern Ireland, are compliant with article 2(1) of the Windsor framework. <BR /> <BR />There are five provisions for which I am now seeking the consent of the Assembly to extend to Northern Ireland. Those measures are set out in clauses 31 to 35 and would put in place robust age verification requirements for the remote sale and delivery of knives and crossbows by amending the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members will be familiar with the contents of the Bill and will recall that I brought forward two earlier legislative consent motions (LCM), which received the agreement of the Assembly on 23 June 2025 and 2 February 2026. The contents of this LCM relate to amendments tabled at Lords Report Stage. As Members will be aware, the amendments were previously tabled at Lords Committee Stage but were withdrawn due to the Opposition's concern that the use of digital ID would become mandatory. However, the UK Government have confirmed that it is not a blanket requirement mandating the use of digital ID to purchase or receive knives or crossbows. It is simply making provision for alternative forms of ID, digital or otherwise, to be used.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Justice Committee has been very patient and very busy today, so I do not intend to take quite as long on this legislation as I did on the previous legislation. <BR /> <BR />As Members will know, the Crime and Policing Bill was introduced at Westminster on 25 February 2025. The provisions in that Bill extend to Northern Ireland to deal with tackling serious crime, economic crime, sexual-related crime and increased public safety across Northern Ireland. Those provisions are primarily in the justice sphere and create new offences and more effectively deal with serious and organised crime and the protection of victims.”
“I, too, would love to pack more into the Bill, and, while there will be things around the margins that we can do, given the limited time that we have, the priority will be ensuring that the Bill gets through before the end of the mandate, so that those who have waited for 10 years and more to get legislation on the books will be able to see it go through in this mandate. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Bill to the Assembly for approval, and I wish the Committee every success in the task ahead. Our shared endeavour on the Bill can be an exemplar of how Ministers and Committees should work together to bring better outcomes to the public.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank Members for sticking it out for the duration of the debate. I am really encouraged by the support and the constructive behaviour and engagement today. I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. It has been really useful, and it has given us food for thought. I anticipate that the Committee will find the Bill's content interesting and compelling. I trust that there will be a new appreciation of the complexity of this area of law, not only in the Committee but in the public domain, as we debate the issues and, hopefully, help people to understand. As I said, there will be a temptation to pack more and more content into the Bill, but I ask people to try to show restraint.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have said, there are a number of areas in the new review: for example, good character evidence; serious sexual offences and the sentencing around those; drug-related offences, as a direct result of Pauline Duddy's speaking with us; Harper's law; fireworks offences, which were previously raised in the Chamber; animal welfare and environmental crime, which I am doing jointly with Andrew; and sentencing guideline mechanisms, including whether we should have a council. There is also the independent sentencing review in England and Wales: we need to take cognisance of that, but, rather than jumping on the bandwagon now, I would rather see how it works through the system first. We will still be working on those areas. We have not set any of them aside just because they are not in the Bill.”
“That common humanity shows itself really strongly in someone such as Pauline. <BR /> <BR />Those who direct or participate in organised crime are already dealt with in the Sentencing Bill. I do not think that it is always about the person who hands the package over. It is the people at the top of the food chain who push those drugs out into our community and exploit all manner of vulnerability and need who really need to be tackled. I really want to deal with those people.”
“They do it under coercion from paramilitaries to pay off debts or from others who previously dealt them drugs and now demand that they deal drugs in the community. You can have multiple levels of vulnerability in that. When I met Pauline Duddy, I was really impressed by her. How she has handled the loss of her daughter Jasmin and campaigned for us to take vulnerability in drug deaths seriously is remarkable. When I meet parents of young people who have died, victims of crime and people who have suffered, I never fail to be impressed by the positivity with which they approach what has happened to them. Almost all of them know that what they are doing will make no difference to their situation. It will not make them better or get justice for their child or family member, but they all say that they do not want it to happen to anyone else.”
“There are people whose lives are spiralling into chaos, and, as a result, they do things without giving any thought to the consequences for themselves, their victim or anyone else. The degree to which deterrence will be influenced by small changes in the sentence is, I think, limited. It is not without value, of course, but the bigger issue is about getting more police officers out there so that people have the real deterrent of thinking that they will get caught. That will be transformative. <BR /> <BR />Suspended sentences and community orders can help with drug dealing. The issue is about how they are managed in the community. Vulnerability is also complex. Many of those who deal drugs in this society do so under coercion.”
“<BR /> <BR />Deterrence came up more than once. I will be honest: the truth is that being caught is the biggest deterrent. Most people do not commit crime expecting to be caught. If they think that they will be caught, that serves as a deterrent. Does anybody who embarks on a course of criminal activity ever sit down and ponder whether they will get 18 months, two years or two and a half years before they go out and do what they are doing? Probably not. There is a deterrent effect for offences such as murder, as there should be. The truth, however, is that many people in the prison system are there for crimes of impulse. They are in prison for crimes that were not thought through or considered.”
“I hope that the next review will be implemented much more quickly and that we will not have to wait 10 years for one to happen. <BR /> <BR />Mark Durkan acknowledged the judiciary's complex role. One of the reasons that we have steered away from mandatory minimum sentences is that we are trying to avoid fettering judicial discretion. There will, however, be exceptional cases, so it is important that the judiciary recognise that and take account of the evidence. We try to peg it from the top of the sentence, and then the judiciary can decide whether there are mitigations or aggravations and proceed from there. On balance, that is a better way forward. We have only a very small number of cases in which there are mandatory minimum sentences. I would be keen to avoid fettering judicial discretion, simply to give the judiciary its place.”
“In such cases, giving a suspended sentence and allowing them, as we are suggesting, to have positive input during that time to deal with the underlying causes of their offending may be more effective in turning their life around and making the community safer. I have agreed to meet the all-party group on that issue. I look forward to discussing how we take those issues forward, including as part of the review. It is really important that we understand the reasons behind offending. <BR /> <BR />Paula raised the issue of hate crime and the wider impact of crime that is motivated by hostility and hatred. Hopefully, we have been able to deal with that. I put on record my thanks to Claire Sugden, who started this process back in the distant mists of time. It has now finally come to fruition in the Bill.”
“Those are the established principles that surround court rulings, but putting them down on paper so that people can see what a sentence is meant to achieve is really important for securing public confidence. <BR /> <BR />As I mentioned already, the fact that sentencing for serious offences can still be suspended is not the norm. It does not happen routinely, but it does happen in certain cases. Philip talked about people who, for lots of reasons, such as addiction or other pressures, may find themselves with a serious charge against them and a serious conviction, yet their likelihood of reoffending is quite low.”
“The new prison will come. <BR /> <BR />Very importantly, Emma Sheerin and Philip McGuigan recognised that understanding the vulnerability of offenders as well as of victims is an important part of justice. I hope that the purposes and principles of the Bill reflect that. As Members can see, we have said that the principles are that sentencing should be fair, proportionate and transparent. The proposed purposes are punishment, which is important and the one that everybody goes to immediately; protection of the public, including victims; reduction of crime through deterrence, which can also be done through that rehabilitation process that I mentioned; and making reparations.”
“She said to me, "How can the past 40 years of my life, and seven years of court wrangles, mean that it can be considered to be an early plea?". The trauma caused to her and her family was immense. What we mean by an early guilty plea therefore needs to be considered, because it may not feel early to the victim. <BR /> <BR />I thank Maurice Bradley for sharing his family's very personal experience of losing a loved one to dangerous driving, which is a really impactful issue. Increasing the starting point and the maximum sentence for those cases is really important to families. I reassure him that we will not create lots of new offences. Rather, we want to provide clarity on how sentencing works and offer more robust alternatives to custody. I also reassure him that, although we are doing that, we will still need our prison at Magilligan.”
“There are benefits to the Public Prosecution Service and to policing from having a properly graduated system in which everyone can see what the outcome will be if you plead guilty at various stages. <BR /> <BR />I dealt with one victim, and I want to share a bit of the story without sharing too much. She was a victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of her siblings. She did not report it to the police until she was an adult, and, as an adult, she had lived with it her whole life. Her brothers continued to contend that they did not do it and that it had never happened, so she had to go to court, which was a really traumatic experience. During the trial, they pled to a lesser charge and got credit for an early plea.”
“It also saves a fortune when it comes to the detail of the case that needs to be built for that person to go through court and be convicted and sent to prison. If they do not plead until arraignment, they can still save the victims a lot of stress. However, they can also cause the victims a lot of stress. If it has taken you three or four years to get to court and you have had to steel yourself throughout that time to be in court, and the person who has abused you in the past then whips the rug from under your feet at the last minute, it will not feel early to you. It may be early to the judge, but it is not early to you. Therefore, we now need to look at that. We discuss it regularly in the Criminal Justice Board.”
“At the moment, whilst, in theory, judges have total discretion as to whether or not they can give any credit for an early guilty plea, the maximum credit is about 33%. The minimum credit is between 20% and 25%, and that was based on a court decision in R v Coyle. There is not a huge difference between 33% and 25%, so there is not much of an incentive for somebody to come forward. That is one aspect of this where, I think, we need a reset. The other area that we need to reset is this: what is "early"? Is it early in the court system or early in the journey through the whole justice system? If somebody pleads guilty immediately on arrest or on charge and says, "Yes, I did it", that saves a multitude of pain for victims and witnesses.”
“There would be considerable exposure for the Department when it comes to funding a sentencing council, so, given that we have nothing set aside for that in the current Budget cycle, it would be better, before we make decisions, to take the time afforded to us to bottom out exactly what we want a sentencing council to do, how we want it to work and what resources we will be able to put into it. <BR /> <BR />The other issue that Doug raised, which, again, I predicted — I am not suggesting that you are always predictable, Doug — was early guilty pleas. I completely agree with you on that one. I feel hugely frustrated about that, as, I think, a lot of members of the public do. It needs to be much clearer for defendants and victims how early guilty pleas work.”
“The advantage of a sentencing council is that the definitive guidelines that it can put forward in relation to certain categories of offence means that you can get consistency and uniformity — mostly — across the courts, and it reflects the fact that that jurisdiction is very large. All our judges pretty much spend most of their day under a single roof, so striving for consistency ought to be simpler in a smaller jurisdiction and perhaps would not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I mentioned cost, so I want to refer to the findings of the review. In the business plan for 2024-25 for the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, staff costs were £1·65 million and non-staff costs were £250,000. The Scottish Sentencing Council has cost £4·6 million over the last 10 years, and the allocation was £1·025 million in 2024-25.”