Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take those questions in a different order from that which the Deputy asked them. He raised a question about violent crimes, particularly murder. Murder in this country will result in an automatic life sentence. There was a time about 30 years ago when the average life sentence in this country worked out as serving a jail sentence of about eight or nine years, except in particular circumstances. There were exceptions to that but that is the way it averaged out. The average life sentence now is between 16 to 17 years. There are a number of people in our prisons who have been there for a good deal longer than that. Whether persons get released effectively under some form of supervision substantially may depend on whether they pose a continuing threat to the public, whether they have participated in prison in various arrangements that may be in place, whether that be psychiatric assistance or otherwise, and the nature of their behaviour during their term of imprisonment. There is a range of issues involved. I do not have in my mind what is the average sentence served across the European Union for the offence of murder but it is between 16 and 17 years in this jurisdiction. I do not have that statistic and I am not going to invent one. I know there are some similarities between other countries and this jurisdiction. In the context of a recent case in which I was engaged where a prisoner was transferred from this State to another state, once one has served a sentence for murder and has been in prison for 20 years, one is entitled to apply for release, but the relevant Minister for justice told me that no one had yet been successful in such an application. There are quite substantial variances across the European Union. That might be an issue this committee might be interested in following up and getting the various statistics from the different European countries to get some insight into that. I do not have that background information.

On the Deputy's question of direct relevance to this matter. The figure of €500 million I mentioned is in the context of the moneys that have been found across the European Union. According to recent figures from the European Central Bank, during the second half of 2012, a total of €280,000 counterfeit euro banknotes were withdrawn from circulation. The average amount of genuine banknotes in circulation during that period was €14.9 billion. That provides an insight, in that while this is a problem it is small scale compared to the numbers.

On a positive note, there was an increase of more than 10% in the counterfeit currency recovered during the second half of 2012. For those of the members interested in this, the most popular denomination of euro notes being counterfeited are apparently the €20 note and €50 note, which account for 80% of the total.

In the context of convictions for counterfeiting in this State between 2005 and 2011, the numbers vary. In 2005 there were 23 convictions, in 2006 there were 11, in 2007 there were 21, in 2008 there were 50, in 2009 there were 4, in 2010 there were 44, and in 2011 there were 49. Those figures will give the Deputy some insight into the statistics on convictions.

I am looking at other statistics that may be of interest to Deputies and Senators. We have statistics from the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, to give the committee an idea of the number of counterfeit notes recovered. In the second half of 2009 some 447,000 were recovered; in the first half of 2010 some 387,000 were recovered; in the second half of 2010 some 364,000 were recovered; in the first half of 2011 some 296,000 were recovered; in the second half of 2011 some 310,000 were recovered; in the first half of 2012 some 251,000 were recovered; and in the second half of 2012 some 280,000 were recovered. While that is a small proportion of the overall number in circulation, it is clearly a focused industry in which individuals seek to benefit from counterfeiting. Clearly. it is important that there be a concerted European Union approach to it.

A six month minimum sentence was mentioned. I think that was in the context of an application in respect of a very minor instance of counterfeiting; nevertheless, one would still serve a minimum sentence. The higher end sentence was eight years. It was clear from the conversation at European Union level with Ministers that there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for imposing a six month minimum sentence for two reasons. First, it would not send the best message because people might have focused on the minimum rather than the maximum sentence and thought they could get away with large-scale counterfeiting and not suffer serious consequences. Second, the State and many others have maximum sentences but rarely impose minimum sentences; if they do, it is in cases of murder or some of the other offences I have mentioned. It would be regarded as disproportionate to single out counterfeiting for a minimum sentence when there are other examples of people acquiring money by unlawful means, in respect of which there is no prescribed minimum sentence. The general approach is that it is better to have a maximum sentence and leave it to the discretion of the individual judge dealing with the matter to determine, given the circumstances of a particular case, what is the appropriate sentence.