John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. Nobody will disagree with the concept and principles underlying the legislation and all Deputies will agree in principle that it is a good idea to have a comprehensive register of sentences which would allow sentencing norms to be assessed, and that a measure which introduces greater transparency to the sentencing process in the criminal justice system is welcome. It is for these reasons that we must be careful that any action we take in the area of sentencing achieves its objectives.

I support the steps being taken to remove some of the mystery of sentencing, as members of the public might regard it. Nevertheless, in approaching this issue, we must be careful to ensure we do not undermine fundamental principles which underpin our criminal justice system. While we all agree that more information on sentencing is required, the Bill as drafted presents certain problems. For instance, section 5(2) provides for the register to be updated weekly, but this requirement is not feasible because many sentences are subject to an appeal and, as such, months will elapse before certainty is established in particular cases. This example of a problem does not detract from the fact that the principles underlying the legislation are valid.

The traditional approach to sentencing is that the Oireachtas lays down the maximum penalty and a court, having considered all the circumstances of a case, may impose an appropriate penalty up to the maximum sentence. This approach reflects the doctrine of the separation of powers, with the Legislature laying down the possible punishment range and the courts deciding the punishment, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and the offender. While this system has served us well, like all systems it is not perfect. It is difficult to balance the rights of the accused and those of the victim in perfect harmony.

No one has suggested replacing the current system with one in which all sentencing is determined by pre-established mandatory sentences. As I noted last week, mandatory sentencing is already in place in some areas, notably under section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 which relates to the misuse of drugs. A mandatory sentences of ten years' imprisonment, save in exceptional and specific circumstances, is in force for the possession of substantial quantities of drugs for the purpose of unlawful sale or supply where the value of the drugs exceeds €13,000. Unfortunately, many people share my view that this provision has not been properly enforced by the Judiciary. Until recent years, mandatory sentences were imposed in only 6% of these types of cases, a figure which has since increased to more than 20% but is still a minority of cases. Judges should resort to the exceptional circumstances provision in a minority of cases. We have a long way to go before the Judiciary has fully implemented the legislation on mandatory sentencing which we, as legislators and public representatives, believe to be appropriate.

I note the Criminal Justice Bill before the House provides for mandatory sentencing for the possession of illegal firearms and other offences. Mandatory sentencing has little effect if it is the exception rather than the rule. The experience to date with this form of sentencing is that it has not delivered on the expectations of Members when they passed the relevant legislation.

I welcome the initiative by the board of the Courts Service to establish a sentencing committee. It would be premature to move on this issue before it has concluded its deliberations. We can see then how best to advance this debate on the establishment of general sentencing information. I welcome the proposal and concur with its principle and concept, but the detail as laid out in this particular——

See this speech in context