Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank members of the committee for the report and the work that was done on it. That report is feeding into a process in my Department, as part of which I set up a committee involving not just officials but a number of other individuals such as Liam Herrick from the Irish Penal Reform Trust and which I expect to report to me in October. We are looking at what additional reforms can be implemented and how we go about it. I have a number of different strands I must ensure I deal with correctly as Minister for Justice. Where individuals are sentenced by our courts, it is important that the sentence is appropriate to the crime committed. That is obviously a matter for the Judiciary. All I can do as Minister is provide the Judiciary with a range of sentencing options. The Judiciary must then choose from that range. As a result of my concerns that the community service option was not being used to the extent it could be, we enacted the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) Act 2011. I remarked that in the context of information available for 2012, I was disappointed that it did not appear that the courts were utilising community service as much as they could. As Minister for Justice, I am very conscious that I must ensure that the sentence fits the crime and that all the appropriate options are used. Of course, there are circumstances where to protect the community and to express the wider community's revulsion at the nature of a crime, it is appropriate that individuals serve sentences of imprisonment. Ultimately, where the Judiciary is given options, it is for its members to determine whether or not prison is appropriate. It is very important that while the Minister for Justice of the day provides for the options and while I urge the use of community service where it is appropriate - and it is right that I do so - ultimately, it is a matter of independent judicial discretion as to what is appropriate in the context of sentencing.

As we know, some work has been done with regard to consistency in sentencing. A recent publication indicated again that sentences do not always appear to be consistent. As a lawyer who practised in the courts, I am also very conscious that on occasions, what may appear inconsistent from a media report may be quite rational, logical, correct and consistent when one knows the total detail of a case that has been before our courts. There are often particular details, issues or background information that influence a judge's decision and some of that information does not get reported or if it is reported, is not reported in a manner in which it is clear what occurred in court was understood. I know the Courts Service and Judiciary are addressing these areas.

We are currently working on the judicial council legislation. I very much welcome the fact that the Judiciary last year effectively put in place its own judicial council which is a non-statutory body. It is very much in the public interest that the judicial council, independent of Government, addresses the issue of consistency of sentencing and that the Judiciary assists its members in being consistent.

To return to the particular issue, the area in which the Minister for Justice has a role is what happens once people are sent to prison. As I already mentioned, we have the incentivised regime that is in place to encourage good conduct and participation in programmes that may assist an individual with difficulties or education programmes. That is important. The suggestion made by the committee that provision be made for a one-third remission as opposed to a one-quarter remission for those who, firstly, do not pose a risk to the community and, secondly, who have behaved well in prison is a very useful proposal, if I can put it that way. It is something to which I have already given some consideration. It would require changes, not in our statutory provisions but in our statutory instruments. It is one of the issues we will address later in the year when the internal committee has finished its deliberations.

Can we reduce the prison population to the numbers the committee mentioned? Again, to an extent, that is not the decision of myself as Minister for Justice nor will it be the decision of any of my successors because, ultimately, it is a matter for the Judiciary. We tend to lose sight of this. The Judiciary has a range of options from simply dismissing a case under the Probation Act to imposing a fine to imposing a sentence or suspended, partially suspended or partial direct sentence to using a mixture of fines and sentencing. One issue that arises that I know is being publicly discussed is the question of whether when a life sentence is imposed, it should be left to the discretion of the Executive, as now occurs, to ultimately determine the length of that life sentence or whether we should introduce, as has occurred in Great Britain, a provision where the Judiciary lays down the minimum period that must be served pursuant to a life sentence. That is an interesting issue because there are differing arguments.

These are all really important issues. I genuinely thank the committee for the work it has done. I anticipate that I will publish the report that will come to me arising out of my own group's work, into which this committee has fed. The report will come to this committee towards the end of the year and will substantially impact on where we go with policy issues. Do I believe we could have fewer individuals in prison with a different approach to sentencing? It remains my view that some individuals may be better served through community service. However, with minor offences where an individual has committed a series of crimes, all of which have brought them on a repetitive basis before the District Court, one crime may on the face of it look to be a minor crime but there is a history of repetitive criminality. In these circumstances, it would be quite reasonable for any judge to reach a conclusion that this individual should serve a sentence for the protection of the community and for them to understand the consequences of their actions if they have not done so by now, particularly in circumstances where they have in the past, to use a non-legal term, "got off under the Probation Act" and been fined or made to do community service. I am sure members of the Judiciary take account of this. Some states in the US have the "three strikes" rule where it does not matter how minor the crime is. If people have been convicted on a third occasion, even if that occasion involved stealing dolly mixtures from a sweetshop, they may find themselves facing life imprisonment. I do not want to see that system in this country but it is all based on getting across the message that individuals must recognise that they have a responsibility to the community in which they live and that there is no excuse for repetitive offending.