Anne Ferris (Wicklow, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I have long been a supporter of restorative justice programmes. It makes perfect sense to me for our legal process to have restoration centred judicial remedies. If a victim feels that he or she would benefit from an apology then, where possible, that should be facilitated. If victims of theft want their goods returned or replaced by the thief, that too should be facilitated if it can be agreed. If victims of assault have had non-compensated financial loss following an injury received and wish to accept voluntary compensation offered by the perpetrator, then that too should be facilitated but there are better ways of doing this than the proposals in the Bill.

Restorative justice needs to be a two-way street. Ideally, it should be restorative for the victim and also restorative for the perpetrator. The victim would receive, in words or gesture, a contribution towards closure of a bad experience. On the other side, restorative justice, if properly implemented, should reduce the chance of a criminal repeating the crime. One problem with the Bill is that it does not look at both sides of the restorative justice equation. Overall, the Bill is not positive for the victim or the criminal. For example, there is nothing in this proposed legislation to protect the victim of a serious assault who does not want the assailant to pay his way into a softer sentence. The courts have already heard from outraged rape victims criticising the decision of judges who, on their behalf but without their request, accepted compensation sums from the attacker in lieu of long prison sentences. Nothing in the Bill distinguishes minor administrative crimes, for example not paying a parking fine, from serious crimes like rape and homicide. If this law was enacted, it could be applied to a rapist as easily as to a petty thief.

Compensation money and sentencing for serious crimes need to be addressed in law. There is no benefit to society if rich rapists and terrorists can buy their way into softer sentences. Equally, the compensation of any victim, even for a minor crime needs to occur within a structure that does not lead to an unhealthy concentration of false accusations for fraudulent purposes. Money and sentencing are two issues that must be handled carefully and separately.

I would welcome a law that facilitates an element of financial compensation to be paid by the guilty party but not in a manner that obstructs justice. Some crimes need harsh sentences to act as a deterrent to others. Some criminals need to be safely behind bars for as long as possible for the protection of society. However, our prisons are overflowing with people against whom society needs no protection. My type of restorative justice would see the parking fine or TV licence evader doing charity work instead of going to prison. My type of restorative justice would allow people guilty of drunken public order offences to serve a positive sentence of weeding the flower beds in a local park for a month or emptying litter bins. This Bill does not provide for that type of scenario.

I also worry that the provisions before us today would encourage those who are accused of a crime but are innocent to plead guilty in order to commence a compensation process and receive a mitigated sentence. That would be an unwelcome development in our laws. I am also unhappy with the aspect of the Bill that requires gardaí to prepare compensation calculations. We currently have healthy air space between the gardaí and the Judiciary in our justice system. For over a month, I have been arguing for the same respectful distance to be created between the gardaí and the Government. I do not think it would be good for the independence of the Garda Síochána, whether as prosecuting agents or as supporter of victims, to become embroiled in the judicial act of sentencing. To legislate for restorative justice is a fine idea and I look forward to upcoming proposals from the Minister for Justice and Equality in that regard. However, the proposal before us is not the answer.

See this speech in context