Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Therefore, it is not particularly necessary. When someone is convicted in the District Court, it is usual for the judge, when telling the solicitor that his client is being convicted, to ask if he is employed, whether he has a family and whether he has any previous convictions. He accepts the solicitor's word on this and the Garda is there to contradict the solicitor if he is not correct on these issues. That is better than asking the solicitor to bring his client forward so that his marital status can be investigated, evidence provided of his marriage and so on.

This amendment will not change things. If a judge had no reason to disbelieve a barrister or a solicitor acting for someone whom he is sentencing, he will ask questions about the circumstances of his client and he will act on that, unless he has doubts or unless the prosecution demands evidence of that. Letters are often handed in with background information on the accused and nobody sees the contents of them — I think this practice has been condemned by the courts. For example, a letter is sent in by a parish priest, a bishop, an employer or a TD. It is a character reference handed to the court and sometimes it sets out propositions that might not have been known. The person might have had a difficult childhood and so on. I think the Court of Criminal Appeal has disapproved of the practice of accepting information in that form, but I do not think there is anything wrong with the judge asking the defence to provide information about the client before he is sentenced, as long as the judge is happy to accept the word of the defence and the prosecution does not object.

See this speech in context