Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

On an initial reading of the Title of the Bill, I thought it might be interesting and worthwhile but it went downhill after that. Sinn Féin is opposed to the Bill especially given the Fine Gael Party's reasoning for it when introducing it last evening. It was stated it would provide greater transparency in sentencing. Most sentences are already pronounced in public. One cannot get more transparency than that. I wish that most of what the State does was as transparent.

All serious crime cases are fully reported in national and local media. If somebody wants to check whether, as Deputy Jim O'Keeffe said, "sentences are being imposed in a fair and rigorous manner", or if a "perceived inconsistency" is occurring, they can do so easily. Just because there is a public reaction to perceived inconsistencies does not mean those perceptions are correct. Judges should base their sentences on a hearing of the case in front of them and the law, and not on potentially inaccurate and incomplete records of previous cases.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe mentioned sentencing tariffs, in other words, minimum sentences. Where is the independence of the Judiciary when taking into account the circumstances? Let us not forget what Deputy Durkan said on this matter: "I mean no disrespect to the legal profession or to the Judiciary but the public is not interested in extenuating circumstances". Why not leave sentencing to The Star or Sunday World for that matter? Section 4(2)(d) refers to any mitigating factors relied upon by the convicted person. There is no mention of what the judge says in sentencing the person or no mention of character witnesses or much else, which informs the judge in his or her sentencing. As stated last night, under Fine Gael, there would be no concurrent sentences. In terms of remission for prisoners, it proposes that the carrot and big stick approach be used. Going by the previous record of its Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that would be a very big stick.

What is to happen when a person has paid his or her debt to society? Is that person entitled to try to rebuild his or her life? This register would allow them to be victimised, discriminated against and targeted because access to Fine Gael's proposed register would be near universal according to the list produced. Even if numbers were allocated to give some semblance of anonymity, a basic cross-referencing of newspaper reportage could identify the individual.

In Britain, last month, it emerged that more than 1,500 were listed as criminals despite their innocence and the effect that such a mistake had on their lives. They were blacklisted from jobs, harassed and barred from some premises. The proposed register is impractical and replicates much of what the Garda Síochána should already have on its PULSE system. If it does not record the results of cases it is prosecuting or bringing to court it is incompetent and needs to be dealt with. Obviously the existing material on the PULSE system should and could be checked in the case of claims being sought for child workers to ensure abusers do not end up working with children.

The proposed register is contrary to existing laws, for example, the in camera rule in cases of domestic violence and cases of juveniles. The Fine Gael Party's time would be much better spent producing better Bills which would go some way to addressing the flaws in the judicial system rather than this type of carry on.

See this speech in context