Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendmentNo. 115:

In page 51, to delete lines 42 to 47.

My comments are addressed to a series of amendments I have in this grouping, namely, amendments Nos. 115, 116, 129, 131, 136, 138, 142, 144, 149, 150, 158, 159, 162 and 164. My amendments fall into two categories, one of which encompasses those proposing to delete those parts of the section with which I do not agree. I am, however, realistic enough to accept that I may not manage to persuade the Minister of the value of my argument. In that circumstance, he should take on board some of the other amendments I have proposed, including amendment No. 116 and a series of cognate amendments, which propose to insert the wording, "(c) the circumstances in which the offence occurred including any aggravating and mitigating factors, extent of violent behaviour, character, age, previous criminal record, family circumstances, expressions of remorse, whether alternatives to custody would be a more appropriate sentence or part thereof and the imperative to protect the public from harm".

The ultimate purpose of the amendments is to maintain judicial discretion over sentencing outcomes. Sinn Féin acknowledges that the Minister is not proposing absolute, mandatory minimum sentencing, a point he made on Committee Stage, or that he is proposing the elimination of judicial discretion. However, in introducing this type of minimum sentencing he is trying to push the Judiciary in the direction laid down in the subsections. Subsection (4) establishes a ten year minimum sentence for an offence of possession of firearms with the intent to endanger life. Subsection (2) already provides for a sentence of up to life imprisonment to be decided by the judge. Amendment No. 115 proposes to delete subsection (4).

The grounds on which a sentence may be reduced are outlined in subsection (5). These are classic provisions of mandatory sentencing practices in other jurisdictions such as the United States and Australia. Evidence on mandatory sentencing from both these jurisdictions suggests it has failed to achieve its objectives.

While subsection (6) does not make the minimum sentence mandatory per se, it does attempt to push in the direction of minimum sentencing by providing that the court may have regard to a number of factors and these are set down in the subsection. I have proposed that in addition to having regard to "whether the public interest in preventing the unlawful possession or use of firearms would be served by the imposition of a lesser sentence", as provided for in subsection (6)(b), a court should also have regard to other factors, which are outlined in the amendment.

Under the Constitution, judges are responsible for administering justice. This should include determination of punishment, which must be appropriate to each crime, and the need to protect the public while maintaining the discretion to ensure proportionality in the interests of justice. Having made this argument on Committee Stage, I do not believe the Minister is willing to accept it. Nevertheless, I ask, even at this late stage, that he reconsider the direction he is taking in this section. While I agree that heavy sentences must be imposed for the offence of possession of firearms with intent to endanger life, judges must take certain factors into account. If the Minister proposes to tell judges they must take certain matters into account, it is appropriate that the House stipulate other factors the Judiciary must consider before passing sentence.

See this speech in context