John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

Like other speakers, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The provisions of the Bill are geared to deal with what is now commonly described as gangland crime. I have some difficulty with categorising all crimes in the manner we are tending to do. I have particular concerns about glamorising some criminals by ascribing certain titles either to them individually or by describing their crimes in a certain fashion. The latest example of that approach involves references to tiger kidnapping. Such references bring extra pain and stress to the victims involved because of the added notoriety they bring to such cases. In addition, however, they may also give the criminal a psychological boost arising from that notoriety. I ask people to consider that aspect of the matter.

Throughout history, there have been plenty of examples of extra damage being done by the notoriety that was bestowed on certain criminals. The media can argue that it may make a story more colourful but we must all work together in order to deal with crime. While we all have an important role to play in that respect, if we are to have a real impact we will need to reconsider our approach to certain aspects of this matter, as it affects everyone. Those who are not direct victims of crime are still affected by criminality, even though they may not realise it and may not provide the necessary support to combat it. They are paying the price either through extra taxation to support the necessary services or by way of indirect charges for insurance and other costs that arise as a result of crime.

It is important to educate the public on those aspects of the issue, as we did 20 or 25 years ago concerning the threat posed by illegal drugs. People must understand that they have a role to play. The public are confused by the current crime situation and are unsure as to how they can support crime prevention measures. They are confused by the judicial system in general. The prohibition on Members mentioning any specific cases in this Chamber is part of the separation of responsibilities, to which we all subscribe, between the Legislature and the Judiciary. Nonetheless, members of the public are greatly concerned by the current situation concerning many reported court cases. Apart from the mismanagement of affairs within the system, which can lead to cases being struck out, repeatedly adjourned or mishandled, there is the serious issue of inconsistency in sentencing. Almost invariably, when this matter is raised we are told by someone or other, "You only think it is wrong because you don't know the facts of the case". That may be true in a few situations but in the vast majority of cases nowadays there is detailed coverage of what is involved, so we are able to make up our own minds on whether the right sentence has been handed down. There is huge concern and the level of inconsistency in sentencing seems to be increasing.

We are rightly discouraged from referring to individual cases, but one can read the decisions that have led to the current serious disquiet. They have also possibly undermined public confidence in the system. The Bill is designed to apprehend and deal properly with criminals — serious criminals in particular — but the role of the Judiciary requires urgent attention. I am not suggesting political interference, as such, but as with all professions, there is a need for constant revision and education of the professionals involved. We highlighted this matter in our earlier discussion on the Pharmacy Bill. As with other professions, judges should be encouraged to keep themselves updated. For the purpose of consistency, a more collegiate approach to the issue is required, including cross-case discussions. Judges should not isolate themselves from society. We all understand the dangers involved in the role and how different and difficult it is. I believe their role is so vital to the system that the importance of public confidence in them cannot be overstated. It is important they have input in legislation such as this. Deputy Gay Mitchell mentioned the Law Reform Commission earlier and I believe that constant monitoring, discussion and advice is essential in this regard. People must understand what we are doing in this legislation.

Such an approach could prevent comments such as the one that was reported regarding the Act passed on mandatory sentences for certain drug offences when Deputy O'Donoghue was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The statement was that "no political hack will tell me how to run my court". I do not know if that comment was actually made but it was reported and if it was made it would be a huge cause for concern as the political hack referred to was a senior Cabinet Minister. Such a comment would be a cause for worry in any field but it is a particular concern given the structure of the Judiciary.

We all have a role to play in crime prevention, some more than others, and ours, as legislators, is huge. We must try to be consistent along with the Garda, the Judiciary and the public. Crime prevention, from the public's point of view, is about active participation with and support for the Garda and it has been stated many times that people who do not wish to be policed will not be policed, as is evident in countries experiencing difficulties upholding law and order. It is necessary to have public support at all levels, whether it be for auxiliary forces or something else.

I try not to be divisive on these issues but the Opposition condemns the Government for inaction on crime on one hand and announces its policy proposals in media-friendly soundbites that attract headlines and may instil fear in people. On the other hand, when it comes to addressing the issue, doing the job of governing, the Opposition backs off and will not take on the responsibility of legislating against criminals and thugs. It comes as no surprise that Members of the Opposition suggest that this Criminal Justice Bill should not be rushed in while they scramble to get on television news bulletins and write letters to newspapers about problems with the bail laws, sentencing and so on. Deputy Mitchell suggested a slow process on this involving more discussions, reviews and reports but there are extremely serious issues relating to bail, sentencing, re-offending and crime prevention and this Criminal Justice Bill is an attempt to tackle such matters.

The time for this legislation is now because society is changing, criminals are changing, their equipment and modus operandi are changing and the law should change to reflect this. I have concerns relating to the civil liberties approach which I will mention later. In recent months family members of employees have been tied up and kidnapped following raids on post offices, banks and money handling firms and this legislation aims to tackle such shocking situations by providing gardaí with the power to detain suspects for up to seven days. It is not helpful to the public to describe such incidents as tiger kidnappings and to raise the profile of the people involved. This arm of the legislation is a direct attempt to tackle the problem of gang crimes head on. I am sure the Opposition would be unhappy to let gang crime go unresolved, yet their stance on this Bill suggests otherwise.

I appeal for the support of the Opposition on this Bill. If some Bills have been found unconstitutional through the years and some have been challenged, it proves there are people capable of taking on the legislators to use the Constitution in any way possible. If there is a problem with this Bill it can be revised but we must pass this legislation.

The Bill deals with detention, the right to bail, the nature of sentencing and how the courts deal with the silence or non-co-operation of accused persons. It also provides for mandatory minimum sentences in drugs cases which is a facet of the Bill that has been criticised and I refer to the previous reported comment of a member of the Judiciary. The public sees total inconsistency in sentencing. A person caught with drugs for personal use may get three or four years in jail while a suspended sentence may be given to a person caught with drugs worth an amount of money that would frighten people. We are entitled to know the details in such cases and why certain decisions were made; people must be answerable in this regard.

The measures to be introduced in this Bill may be seen as harsh but we cannot be soft on criminals, particularly those who commit serious crimes; they are certainly not soft on the public. It is time to get tough in certain cases because there are horrific things being reported in newspapers. I do not wish to play good cop, bad cop. In the past week there were reports of a person in the northern jurisdiction who had his face smashed beyond recognition with a shovel. It hardly bears thinking about. We must be serious on the legal side of these issues and the penalties to be paid for such offences.

Laws are in place to protect the law abiding citizens of the State, not to shield the guilty and I am not sure what Deputy Gay Mitchell's point was in this respect. A person who commits a crime must serve the time but I do not see how this affects an innocent person. There will be people, I do not like to describe them as do-gooders, who will suggest this Bill is an attack on civil liberties but I believe it is an attack on serious criminal elements that have infiltrated communities around the country. When I hear discussions of civil liberties I seldom hear concern for victims, for the elderly who cannot leave their homes after dark for fear of what is happening around them. I hear little sympathy for people who have lost everything in robberies, who have been battered and so on. These people do not seem to count when it comes to civil liberties. I believe civil liberties should be applied to all people equally, not just those who wish to commit crime, and balance is needed in this regard. We are all concerned about people being wrongly charged but there is a system for reviewing such decisions and for compensating people in such circumstances.

The new legislation will add to the resources of the Garda as well as those of the prosecution services and the courts. We had been criticised in the past for not responding swiftly yet when we do we are still criticised. It is time for action, not inaction, and that is why this Bill must be passed into law as quickly as possible.

I have long felt that crime initiatives and strengthening the powers of the Garda will be ineffective if sentencing is not consistent throughout the State. I raised this point previously with the Minister through a parliamentary question when I asked if crimes of a similar nature were sentenced in a consistent fashion throughout the State and how this was monitored. That was long before this Bill was printed but the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, pointed out that the courts are independent in the exercise of judicial functions and that the traditional approach to sentencing is for the Oireachtas to lay down maximum penalties and for the courts to impose appropriate penalties after considering cases. The difficulty lies in the interpretation of appropriate penalties because it is hard to see some of the sentences that have been handed down as appropriate. The Minister said the system reflects the separation of powers and that while it is for the Executive to lay down the possible punishment range it is for the courts to decide the punishments to be applied to the offender, taking account of the seriousness of the crime and all circumstances of the case and of the offender. Members of the public and legislators would subscribe to this approach if we were given open and transparent reasons for decisions. The practice by which the Director of Public Prosecutions does not state the reasons for non-prosecution gives rise to concerns. Sentencing decisions is another area in need of examination.

It is not unreasonable to require members of the Judiciary to operate with the same degree of circumspection as the rest of us. This Government has done more than any of its predecessors to combat crime, the nature of which changes continually. The budget of the Garda Síochána has been increased by 10% to €1.445 billion this year, while Garda numbers now exceed 13,000. I hope the Garda Reserve will contribute to better policing in communities nationwide.

To be parochial, I have figures on Garda numbers in Cork. The personnel strength of the Cork city division on 31 December 1997 and 31 December 2006 was 540 and 641, respectively. This constitutes an increase of 102 or 18.8% in the number of personnel allocated over a decade, a reasonable increase in Garda strength. I do not have the expertise or knowledge to tell my local chief superintendent that garda X or Y should be deployed elsewhere. It is good that I can walk into my local Garda station and discuss local policing issues. Deployment decisions are, however, a matter for the line commander, rather than a trade union or others outside the force. It is the Minister's duty to supply a sufficient number of gardaí. I am pleased with the increase in Garda numbers in the Cork area. That is not to say the city has more criminals or crime than other areas but it needs the same levels of policing as any other major urban area.

Of the critically important amendments to the Bail Act, the rights and wrongs of electronic tagging have attracted most attention. If one breaks the law at any level, one must serve the sentence or pay the fine. If one commits murder, one must serve life in prison. If one enters a bank or post office and waves around a gun, one must serve an appropriate sentence in jail. We do not use modern technology as much as we should and if new means become available for monitoring people released on bail, so be it.

Some of the sentences handed down for firearms offences are inadequate and the law must be updated to provide for increased sentences for these types of offences. I am not qualified to speak with authority on the issue of bail. The implementation of provisions on bail is a matter for the Judiciary paying due regard to the laws laid down by the Oireachtas.

I welcome the legislation's technical amendment to provisions governing appeals from a District Court to a Circuit Court and so forth. The Pharmacies Bill before the House this morning amends an Act introduced 130 years ago. I would not like legislation in the area of justice to remain unchanged for so long.

It is necessary to use modern technology to confront and challenge those who take new approaches to committing crime. We learned much from the war we fought during the bad times of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. We should examine this era to try to learn further lessons for dealing with current problems.

I alluded to my concern about categorising all criminals. It is handy to use terms such as white collar and blue collar crime but company law, laws on gun crime and guns and other forms of law create confusion. We must differentiate only between those who break the law and those who uphold it and whatever measures are required to deal with the former should be implemented with the full support of legislators.

I compliment the Minister on introducing this timely legislation. As I can only dream about the expertise he possesses in this area, I will allow myself to be led by him on the Bill. It is preferable to enact this legislation now and deal with any mistakes that may be identified at a later date, rather than allow circumstances on the ground to continue.

See this speech in context