Ms Caroline Counihan:

The Rape Crisis Network Ireland, RCNI, broadly welcomes the forthcoming criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill 2014, as set out in the general scheme, because we welcome the inclusion of victims’ interests as an important part of the sentencing process, and as an important way of ensuring the best possible risk assessment and management of sex offenders. In particular, we welcome the provisions which implement our own earlier recommendations about compensation and pre-sentence assessment reports.

I will focus on certain heads of the Bill. In head 44, compensation, we welcome very much the deletion of the words “instead of” from subsection (1) of the original Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, as we have already advocated for this, and it was recommended by the legal issues sub-committee, LISC, of the National Steering Committee on Violence against Women. It will no longer be possible to make a compensation order instead of a sentence. This is entirely appropriate. We recommend further that if any judge is considering a compensation order, she or he should be obliged to consult the victim of the crime first. Our experience is that some victims of sexual violence are not willing to accept any compensation from an offender, regardless of the circumstances. If the judge found that the victim was indeed unwilling to accept such compensation, he or she should be able to order that the same amount be paid by the offender to the reparation fund.

With regard to assistance for the victims of crime, we have nothing but praise for the existing Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime funding structure, which is simple and well-administered, and our members have benefited greatly from the funding for court and Garda accompaniment. A request for help can only be funded by the commission if it relates in our case to accompaniment services applied for and approved in advance. The structure is not very flexible. We recommend that, however it is administered, the reparation fund structures should have the capacity to be flexible to victims’ needs as they arise, as far as possible. The application process to the reparation fund should be well publicised by the State, simple and easy to understand, easy to administer and account for, and the portion allocated to victim assistance should increase the overall amount of funding available to victims of crime, not replace existing sources of funding. With regard to victim compensation and reparation the existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal should have its rules replaced to include all those categories of victim who may now find themselves actually or potentially excluded from compensation.

Under head 16, probation assessment reports, we recommend that with regard to the content of such reports, each one should include a detailed assessment of the risk of future re-offending and make proposals to address any such risk, where appropriate. If anyone convicted of a sex offence does not co-operate with the preparation of a probation assessment report, that fact should be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge, who should have the power to impose sanctions if she or he is satisfied there is no reasonable excuse for the failure to co-operate. As part-suspended sentences provide an important mechanism through which the court may impose conditions aimed at reducing the risk of re-offending after release and activate the full sentence if these conditions are breached, we submit that part-suspended sentences should be included explicitly in the wording of head 16(2)(c). Where the sentencing judge considers it may be appropriate to impose a part-suspended sentence on a sex offender, we submit that she or he should have regard to some of the same matters which must be considered by a sentencing judge who has to decide whether to impose a post-release supervision order.

With regard to head 17, other reports that may be requested, we recommend that in the case of sex offenders at least, any report prepared under this head should refer explicitly to the risk of re-offending and the report’s author should make any recommendations which seem appropriate to address this risk.

Under heads 20 and 21, access to reports and the right to tender evidence on reports respectively, we recommend that head 20 be reworded slightly so that victims are named as a class of people entitled to see copies of reports under that part, unless there are exceptional circumstances in a particular case which mean that the judge should not allow this. Head 21 is broadly welcomed.

With regard to head 8, discharge orders and binding over orders relating to summary offences, we recommend that the wording about the interests of any victim be changed from “may have regard” to “shall have regard”, so that any judge considering a discharge order or binding over order is obliged to consider the needs of any victim of the offence.

In respect of head 9, restorative justice criteria for the purposes of head 8(3)(f) we recommend that the wording of head 8 on restorative justice criteria be changed from “may have regard to” to “shall have regard to”, to put it beyond doubt that where they are applicable, the restorative justice criteria must be included in any consideration of a disposal without conviction.

With regard to head 34, role of probation service in relation to court proceedings, we recommend that the proposal to allow Probation Service officers to prepare a victim impact statement be scrapped. In making this submission, no criticism of the great and necessary work of Probation Service officers is intended.

We thank all members of the committee most sincerely for this opportunity to make submissions on the forthcoming criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill 2014, and for the invitation to attend this meeting today. If any members of the committee would like further information on any point, they should not hesitate to contact us.