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

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 18, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

24.—In this Part—

"Freedom of Information Acts" means the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 to 2003;

"law terms" refers to the four periods (to wit Michaelmas, Hilary, Easter and Trinity) of prescribed sittings for the Superior Courts, as defined in Order 118, rule 1 of the rules of the Superior Courts;

"the Register" means the Register of Sentences established by section 4;

"the Service" means the body established by the Courts Service Act 1998;

"time already served" means the period of time, prior to conviction, during which the convicted person was detained in custody without bail.".

We have been talking about sentencing and I have long had the view that one of the greatest concerns of the public has been inconsistency in sentencing. If I get any greater series of complaints above the norm, it is when cases appear to be inconsistent so far as the public is concerned. It is not unreasonable for the public to expect a standard of consistency in regard to sentencing. Is there inconsistency? Clearly there is. We do not even have a database to establish the level and range of sentences that have been passed. It is an inevitable consequence of what essentially amounts to an ad hoc situation that there is inconsistency, and that is wrong. Everybody should know that if they commit a particular offence, a certain level of sentence will probably follow. If a person is before the court the public should know that if that accused person is convicted he or she is likely to get a sentence within a certain range, and that sentence will be imposed unless there are particular circumstances which, in my view, should be explained in open court.

The approach I adopt to sentencing is that for serious crime there must be tougher sentencing but it must be consistent. An absolute basic approach to consistent sentencing is that there must be a register of sentences. That is the central issue in this series of amendments and is the basis for consistent sentencing.

The right approach in regard to sentencing is that we should have a register. At present a judge, particularly one who deals with many criminal cases, has, of his or her own knowledge, a fair idea of the level of sentences that have been passed in that area. Judges who have been newly appointed or who do not have a tradition in criminal cases may not be aware of the level of sentences and there is no ready access to a register of sentences available to them. It is possible they will be advised by the counsel for the accused, but that would be a plea in mitigation. There is no normal circumstance where, unless requested by the judge, the prosecuting counsel gives a view on sentencing, and that is ridiculous.

On the issue of sentencing, I would like to introduce a register of sentences which would be readily available to judges but also to everybody else, including those who might be contemplating committing a crime so that they would know what is in store for them if caught. In that way, when a person is being sentenced in court there would be sentencing guidelines which would establish the range of sentences that could be expected for any particular offence. That is what happens in other common law countries. Why do we not have that system here? We should start with the register of sentences and establish the range of sentences and the guidelines. It is up to the Oireachtas to do that.

As of now we merely point out a maximum sentence but that is not a great guideline to the court. We should establish sentencing guidelines, tariffs as they are known in some other common law jurisdictions, but at the end of the day we have to accept the judge has the discretion to make his or her decision on sentences. We should also require, and the Oireachtas is entitled to do so, that if the judge goes outside the tariff laid down by the Oireachtas he should explain in open court why he or she is so doing.

A completely new approach is needed to sentencing. The fundamental basis is that at least we have a database, a register of sentences. That is the centrepiece of this series of amendments. If we agree to establish that database we will start the process, at long last, of the beginning of the end for inconsistency in sentencing. As long as we do not have that register of sentences we will continue with the present ad hoc approach, helped here and there by directions from appeal decisions from the Court of Criminal Appeal and so on, but essentially still an ad hoc system.

The other proposals relating to amendment No. 66 deal with the issue of a register of sentences and access to it. What I would like to see is an approach whereby the minimum basic tool is available to judges in particular but to everybody else who is involved in the criminal justice system to enable us to begin the process of eliminating inconsistency in sentencing in our courts.

See this speech in context