Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

We must remind ourselves that the maximum sentence for crimes of this nature is life imprisonment. It has been open to the Judiciary to impose such a sentence. We were right to criticise the Judiciary from the outside for the lenient sentences it imposed in many cases in the past. I do not know whether the provision that was introduced to allow lenient sentences to be appealed applies in this case. Perhaps we should encourage more lenient sentences in relation to firearms, considering the number of firearms and the number of shootings in this country. Shootings are so commonplace now that many of them are not reported. I know of an incident a few weeks ago when a young man shot a finger off another man, but it was not reported by the media. I do not know whether it was even reported to the Garda. That is the extent of the use of weapons in society. We should take a stronger role to ensure that no further loss of life takes place, even if those who are killed are regarded as the scumbags of our society. Despite Operation Anvil, which has not delivered what the Minister hoped it would deliver, such people continue to wave their weapons around and shoot at will. There are probably more weapons on the streets now than there were at the start of Operation Anvil.

We need to get tough. This Bill and some of the amendments which have been proposed to it will help to erode the discretion of the Judiciary. My amendment No. 116 states that "previous criminal record" should be taken into consideration in sentencing, rather than in securing a conviction. At present, judges take into consideration many matters, including "previous criminal record". Before we provide for a minimum sentence, we should ensure at the very least that judges take into account the criminal record of a person who may have committed a second, third or fourth offence. It is obvious that judges will take a dim view of people who come before them having previously been convicted, served a sentence and been released, only to get involved with criminal gangs again. Judges should issue appropriate sentences in such cases. I firmly believe the Judiciary is capable of considering all the circumstances before it makes decisions. As lay people, we are sometimes unhappy with such decisions. It is obvious we have a right to criticise in such circumstances.

I do not think we should take away judicial discretion. If we start to interfere with the Judiciary by telling it to deliver sentences of a certain type and not giving it any discretion in instances of second offences, it will not be a good day for democracy. A person who committed an offence when he or she was very young might not commit a second offence until 20 or 30 years later. There may be mitigating circumstances, for example in cases such as those highlighted by Fine Gael in the Private Members' Bill that will be discussed in the House later this evening. There might be mitigating circumstances if a householder who is defending his or her property is arrested for being in possession of an illegal firearm.

See this speech in context