Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I am sorry the Minister of State is abandoning ship although I am sure he must attend other business.

I welcome the Bill and the debate on sentencing on what is a bleak day for the criminal justice system in Ireland. Families and individuals throughout our State despair at the failures that led to the release of a convicted child predator this day. My colleague has already pointed to the fact that people will already be in despair that somebody guilty of such a heinous crime, plying a young child of 12 with drink and then predating on that child to have a sexual relationship with her, ended up with a sentence of three years. That will surprise many people. The notion is objectionable that that individual, in the eyes of the law, has committed no offence, walks free, is not subject to any account and is not on any register. The matter is being appealed but it beggars belief that amending legislation was not ready in the event of the Supreme Court reaching the conclusion it did.

All this provides us in this House with a number of cautionary tales. One is that we take great care in how we handle criminal legislation. Bluntly, the Criminal Justice Bill now trundling through Committee Stage is not being handled with care. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already instanced that one of the proposals among the 220 pages of amendments was that there would be mandatory sentences for the possession of drugs in excess of the old value of £10,000, now some €13,000. However, in the new legislation, it is not a defence that one does not know what the drugs are worth. That is surely now frail and suspect in the same way as the 1935 Act because one must be able to present that defence. We need the time to ensure we do not have more dark days like today with criminals walking free because we were not robust in carrying out our constitutional duties to enact proper legislation to protect the citizens of the State.

This Bill is worthy and important, particularly its proposal to have a central and accessible register of sentences. To have such a database would be invaluable. It is depressing to see the knee-jerk reaction from the Minister of State. It was clear he had not read his speech before he attended the Chamber. He smiled as he read, "I am opposing the Bill on behalf of the Government on the basis it would be premature". Again another working group will be reporting to a steering committee or another pilot scheme is in place. It is always a step away from a decision in any area, which I regret.

The main issues of concern among the public are the need for effective policing and the inconsistency of sentencing practices where the punishment does not always fit the crime. In some instances lawyers will say there is fishing for certain judges. This must stop. Public faith in the judicial system and the criminal justice system must be restored. The tariffs that accrue to a particular offence should be standard. I accept no case is the same. A separation of powers exists that allows the courts to interpret the law to determine appropriate sentences that match individual cases. There cannot, however, be vast disparities when the outline shapes of two separate cases are the same.

Many years ago, when I last held this spokesmanship, there was a debate on training, accountability, structured peer review with organised discussion and specialisation in the Judiciary. All this now happens on an ad hoc basis. During the debate, the proposals were to be put by constitutional amendment. I argued against the then Minister's proposals. The mechanism he proposed for disciplining a judge would have made it even more difficult to remove a judge from office. A simple majority of the House enacts a law and elects a Taoiseach. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, proposed the removal of a judge would require a two thirds majority of the House. It struck me as a move in the wrong direction. We did not take advantage of the debate to put in place a structure for judicial conduct. We are now in a situation on such matters where we have no structure. Instead we are inventing structure with the help of the Supreme Court to map our way through a minefield which we should have done many years ago. The promised return to judicial accountability never happened.

Under the Bill the Courts Service would have a duty to bring into being and maintain a comprehensive database of sentencing. The service has done sterling work since it was put in place. It has reformed the facilities available to the courts system in many places. I will be parochial in saying that one of the gaping holes of its infrastructure is the Wexford courts building. I hope the promised new courts building there will come on-stream soon. By and large, the service provides good facilities with good case and document management. It would be well able to carry out the duties, given the resources, laid out in the Bill.

The database would do much good. It would aid judges by providing information on indicative sentencing which they could examine and know whether the norms they propose to apply are correct. It would be proper information that would restore public confidence in that the public could see what is happening in sentencing. It would provide information for us as law-makers to know how legislation is being enacted. Several years ago mandatory sentencing of a minimum of ten years was introduced for drug importation. Up to two years ago in over 90% of all cases, the mandatory sentence was not applied. It was only applied in 2% of cases which I understand has increased to 20%. However, it remains that in the majority of cases, the decision of the House on mandatory sentencing is not applied. The House must know these facts. Such a database would aid researchers in being able to compare Irish norms to international practice. It is a pity that good ideas from this side of the House are ignored.

See this speech in context