Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I have tabled amendments and I suggest the Minister adopts them because in this situation, with it being a charge on the Central Fund, the Opposition cannot get amendments accepted. Why do we not increase the number of judges to a much higher number so that they can be appointed when required? Why do we set a limit?

Despite the increasing crime we have seen in Ireland in recent years and the falling detection rates, there is still a record number of cases going before the courts. The waiting lists for cases to be heard are getting longer. There are unacceptable delays in the criminal courts and one of the reasons is the lack of judges. No matter how hard they work — some work very hard — they cannot keep up with the pace of dealing with crime.

This brings me to the earlier comments of the Minister on the Judiciary. It is not appropriate for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day to publicly excoriate judges for populist reasons. There are plenty of opportunities for the Minister to convey his remarks to the President of the District Court if he considers it appropriate. It does not add anything to our democratic system to have what amounts to a public stand-off between the Minister and the Judiciary. Either judges will not be able to respond or they will have to make comments that it would be better for them not to have to make. This is not the way to do business.

Perhaps the Minister was encouraged by polls that suggested judges are imposing sentences that are too lenient. He should examine his conscience in this regard. Does he not realise that with regard to sentences it is, to a large degree, the Oireachtas that has a role? I am not talking about the issue of minimum mandatory sentences, but about assisting judges to get a consistent sentencing policy. However, we have not done so. The minimum judges should have available is a database of sentences.

The Fine Gael Party, supported by the Labour Party, debated a Bill in the House and argued for the establishment of such a register of sentences, but it was voted down by the Government. The least we could have, as other countries have, is a database that would establish the basic things judges should know when dealing with a particular crime. Such a database would allow them refer to similar offences in the past and is the minimum that should be available if we want consistency in sentencing.

I would like to go far beyond that point. In the same way as happens in parliaments in other common law countries, the House should establish sentencing tariffs. I would like to see a situation where a maximum and a minimum sentence are established by the Oireachtas. This happens in virtually every other common law jurisdiction, including England, Wales, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Why do we continue as we are here? Why do we not accept the fact that there is no need to reinvent the wheel and do what has worked in other countries?

Regarding sentencing policy, I would like to see tariffs established and guidelines provided for maximum and minimum sentences. Also, because we must respect the independence of the Judiciary to go above or below the tariffs, I would like to see a situation where judges would be required to explain why they went outside the tariffs. This would not interfere with the independence of the Judiciary, but would put an onus on them to explain their reasons for not imposing a minimum tariff or for going beyond the maximum guideline.

It is ludicrous for us to continue with a situation in our courts where the prosecution counsel is not allowed a view after conviction on what the sentence should be. Some years ago we introduced a measure, which I favoured and supported, whereby the DPP could appeal against the leniency of sentences. It is ludicrous that the DPP can make such an appeal, yet his counsel in the court is not allowed a view as to what the sentence should be after conviction at the primary hearing. This situation should not be allowed to continue.

We need to face up to the issues that arise here, but the Government has not done so. It has not faced the issues raised by consecutive and concurrent sentencing nor has it faced the issues with regard to an area about which I feel strongly, namely, the situation where somebody who receives a sentence of eight years from Judge Carney in the Central Criminal Court is brought to Mountjoy or wherever and his sentence is reduced automatically to six years. This surely is not acceptable.

I do not believe in automatic remission of sentences, although this is not to say there should not be remission of sentences. I am not trying to play the hard man, but the remission should be earned. A change should be introduced to ensure prisoners earn their remission. Let them be given an incentive to earn remission. We must incentivise good behaviour and those who in the past rejected efforts made to rehabilitate them because there was nothing to be gained from participating in rehabilitation programmes. These are some of the changes I want to see applied before we appoint extra judges.

If we appoint new judges, we must give them the necessary supports. Is the Government, in the short time left to it, prepared to ensure the effectiveness of the Courts Service? If the Courts Service has more judges as is necessary, there needs obviously to be an increase in the support staff in each of the courts affected by this Bill. That means a new court registrar for each of the 14 new judges who the Bill proposes to introduce and a proportionate increase in staff in the different court offices so judges are not frustrated by administrative delays and back office pile ups.

Often I have worried about matters such as the delay in the issue of reserve judgments. I acknowledge the Minister took some steps in that regard, but I understood that much of the problem was to do, first, with a lack of judges so that judges needed to be continually on the bench and did not have the time off to write up their judgments as happens in other courts and, second, a lack of even simple secretarial facilities and administrative back-up. As we are discussing judges, that is an issue that should be dealt with.

See this speech in context