Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the opportunity to speak to this matter and I thank Deputy Halligan for bringing this issue before the House for debate.

It is, as my colleague, Deputy Corcoran Kennedy, stated, part of a modern justice system that we consider restorative justice. When we look at the criminal justice system the challenge is to decide on what is the correct reprimand or penalty that somebody convicted of a criminal offence should receive. A good rule of thumb in this regard is to consider how one would feel if something was taken from one's pocket. I refer, in this case, to compensation. It is apt that we should consider that where at all possible whoever is a perpetrator, be it in the form of harm to a person or property, should also pay from his or her pocket and, depending on the severity of the crime, the appropriate other sanction might also be a prison sentence.

There have been issues and difficulties identified with the Bill but I hope that Deputy Halligan can take some comfort from the forthcoming criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill that has been approved by the Government for drafting and will deal with all kinds of issues pertaining to the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, including community sanctions and so on. In particular, what is welcome is a specific item that deals with restorative justice that would operate within the District Court, where, ordinarily, lessor offences are tried and where such compensation could be made by an offender with the agreement of the victim which in turn would in some way allow for a discharge order or a binding-over order. As has been stated, this would suit a one-off type offence or a young offender, or give somebody a second chance, which is fair enough to expect from a criminal justice system.

When we look at the way the criminal justice system operates the other aspect is reparation for society. I have particular issues that I have raised previously in this House which relate to the criminal legal aid system. I wholly subscribe to the idea that persons should have access to the law and to the courts. This is an essential part of the rule of law in any democracy, and we must stand firm with that. One is entitled to have effective legal representation in court. However, there is the reality of a small few offending repeatedly. Sometimes these are minor offences but the fact that there are repeated minor offences makes them become serious offences entitling the accused to legal aid because he or she faces a possible term of imprisonment. In many cases, the accused are on social welfare. They are getting legal aid. I can speak personally on this because I operate in the system as a solicitor. In many cases, those involved are not upholding their familial responsibilities. They will have money for alcohol and for the betting offices. Then they break up somebody's property, get involved in an altercation, injure somebody and are in court the next morning, once again. I refer to repeat offenders who are getting legal aid. For the ordinary citizen, this is galling and upsetting.

This matter has been looked at by a task force which was seeking to reduce criminal legal aid costs and one of the issues cited in claiming payment from this type of offender would be the cost of administration, but it goes back to hitting people in the pocket. They have money for other matters that I would not count as necessities. They should, even in a nominal way, which is how we value matters in this society, face a charge. There is, in parallel, the civil legal aid system where parties in crisis in their lives wait months to see a solicitor, whether in a family law case or a contract case such as having their house repossessed. This is the reason many voluntary organisations have sprung up to advise citizens. It is important we have this well-rounded debate on such offenders.

See this speech in context