Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

There has been much talk about what the DPP might be able to do and what generally happens. Traditionally, as the Taoiseach is aware, the DPP was seen as being in a position to assist the courts to arrive at a decision. In our adversarial court system a situation may arise where the defendant's barrister can go into a long tirade about mitigation for a defendant while the DPP, because of a convention, sits there and says nothing. Just as the barrister for the defendant can make a case for mitigation, so too should the DPP's office be able to make a case for prosecution. He often does that by giving his views on the leniency of sentences. Does the Taoiseach accept the current system does not allow for the people, through the DPP, to have their say prior to a sentence being handed down? Would it be reasonable to set aside the current convention? In an adversarial situation, prior to a judge handing down a sentence, and where the defendant's barrister makes a case saying why the person should be given a lenient sentence, the DPP should speak on behalf of the people even if referring to tariffs set down by the Oireachtas.

The problem is that this does not happen because of a traditional convention. Does the Taoiseach have a view on this? Does he think the antiquated system should go by the board and that the DPP should be able to speak up on behalf of the people to say that a certain crime should carry a certain sentence? It would send a clear message to criminals who think they can get a soft touch and that the law is tilted in their direction.

See this speech in context