Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the Bill. While I agree with the sentiments behind it, I question the practicalities of putting the structures in place in a manner which will be of benefit to the public at large. It is one thing to collect all the information in regard to sentencing to find whether Johnny got the same sentence as Mary for what seems to be the same offence. However, the reality is that without an expert analysis of each case, including an analysis of the evidence and mitigating factors taken into account by the presiding judge and without taking into account a plethora of issues, it will not be possible to make a judgment on whether there is uniformity in the sentences handed down by the various courts.

The Bill proposes a new scheme of recording sentences but, even within the existing regime, many improvements could be made, for example, the idea of remission as being a standard. The present situation allows a criminal being sentenced to jail to tell his associates on the outside when he will be set free, taking into account remission. The system should not be as simple as that. Criminals are so well aware now about procedures that they can play the system, keep their noses clean and get out early to continue their life of crime.

Another issue which needs to be addressed is where a criminal who may be in jail for one offence may be brought before the courts for a different offence, receive another sentence and be allowed to serve it concurrently with the sentence received for the first offence. This effectively means there is no punishment for the second offence. The logic of the matter defies explanation. How can a person serve two jail sentences at the one time? With this farcical system in place, the message to the criminals is clear. They should commit as many offences as possible as close in time to each other as possible because they will serve only one sentence.

See this speech in context