Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

The membership of the committee comprises Mrs. Justice Susan Denham as chairperson, Mr. Justice Kevin O'Higgins, Mr. Justice Esmond Smyth, Judge Miriam Malone, President of the District Court, and Professor Tom O'Malley.

The steering committee reviewed sentencing systems worldwide and identified those of Scotland and New South Wales as the most relevant to our situation. Professor Cyrus Tata, director of the Centre for Sentencing Research at Glasgow, made a presentation to the committee on the sentencing system which has been operating in the Scottish High Court for the past decade. Professor Tata played a leading role in the development of the Scottish sentencing information system.

The committee decided to establish a pilot project in the Circuit Court in Dublin. Two researchers have been selected to collect and collate information on sentencing outcomes in cases on indictment in designated courts in accordance with criteria specified by the committee. The objectives of the project are to identify criteria and other information employed by the Judiciary in sentencing for particular offence types in criminal proceedings; record and retrieve such information in individual cases; design and develop a database to store the information retrieved and enable its retrieval in accordance with various search criteria; share or disseminate the information, utilising information and communications technology, via a judicial intranet or other means; and assemble appropriate material on sentencing for a benchbook and website.

Briefing meetings to explain the project have been held with the judges of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and court registrars who will be involved in the initial phase of the pilot project. It is proposed to commence a pilot project shortly in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. It is anticipated that this project will run for a six-week period and that it will be evaluated prior to a further pilot in October 2006 in the Circuit Criminal Court. Work will also commence on an information system on the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Apart from the pilot project, one must not ignore the current position which is that the law enables judges to exercise their discretion, within the maximum penalty, by reference to the conclusions they reach after trying a case, hearing all the evidence and assessing the culpability and circumstances of the accused. Judges, on appointment, have a wide knowledge of the law and its application and bring to the bench their experience and training as legal practitioners. The Minister is reluctant to depart from this approach but there are exceptions, especially in the case of murder where there is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

With regard to the Minister's proposals on sentencing, the House may be aware that he is proposing the introduction of new statutory sentencing powers by way of Committee Stage amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. In general, the proposals will provide a wider range of sentencing options to the courts, including alternatives to custodial sentences. The first of these will give a court power to suspend or partially suspend sentences subject to certain conditions. The purpose is to provide an incentive to offenders to deal with issues giving rise to the offence and to stay away from crime. The conditions include a condition that the person keeps the peace and is of good behaviour during the period of imprisonment and during the period of suspension. The court may also make its order subject to such other conditions. For example, an order may include a condition that the person undergoes substance abuse treatment or psychological counselling or other treatment, or that the person co-operates with the probation and welfare service for the purposes of his or her rehabilitation and the protection of the public.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe touched on this issue in his contribution. I agree with him that the giving of rehabilitative options to the courts which can be implemented in the context of sentencing is an important issue.

The Minister also proposes that the courts can, in certain circumstances, impose a fine but defer the custodial sentence pending an assessment of the offender's behaviour during the period of deferment. The court may defer sentence for a period of not more than six months. The court may make the deferment subject to such conditions as the court deems appropriate, including a condition that the offender be of good behaviour and keep the peace. Before making such an order the court must be satisfied that a number of requirements have been met, including that the offender consents to the deferral of the sentence of imprisonment and that the offender undertakes to comply during the period of deferral with any conditions as to his or her conduct which the court specifies.

In commenting on this area, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe made the point that he would like to see the area of rehabilitation on the part of the offender factored into the issue of parole when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. In fact, the question of the issue of remission can only arise in two circumstances. One of these is in the context of the administration of the prison system itself in that the prison authorities, if satisfied with the good conduct of the offender while a prisoner, can recommend and attach to the prisoner a designated period of one quarter remission. In more serious cases involving a longer sentence, the parole board advises the Minister whether there should be remission. These are delicate and difficult decisions. I know the Minister values the existing procedure which enables him to be guided by advice from the parole board.

It is also intended to give the courts the power to impose restriction of movement and electronic monitoring orders instead of imprisonment for certain offences. This is a matter on which the leader of the principal Opposition party, Deputy Kenny, caused a frisson of excitement at the annual conference but it is in fact envisaged in legislation before the House. The power to impose restriction of movement and electronic monitoring orders is intended to be conferred upon the courts under the Criminal Justice Bill.

See this speech in context