Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

The debate on sentencing is an important one but it is not taking place beyond the few Members present who are interested, as well as members of the Bar or the Law Society. Obviously judges themselves would have a view on it. Sometimes we are forced to react by sensational headlines about a perceived wrong or inconsistent sentencing by a judge, but I am concerned that the debate has not dealt fully with such matters. There is an increasing rush towards mandatory sentencing rather than towards my proposal in the amendment that was ruled out of order, which was to set out proposed minimum or possible maximum sentences when legislation is being framed. However, we should leave it to a judge's discretion having heard all aspects of a case. Sometimes people are rightly concerned if there is a wide divergence between sentences on the basis of what they see. One way of addressing that would be to establish guidelines when we frame legislation. Such guidelines would not detract from judicial discretion. That discretion is required and, if at all possible, we should not interfere with it. Mandatory sentencing, however, is interfering with the role, duties and responsibilities we place on judges. Their sentencing might not be appropriate sometimes, in our view, but as other Deputies have said, we have not sat through the entire court case, nor have we heard all the ins and outs of a case. It can be quite harrowing for the victims of an offence to find that the perpetrator has received a suspended sentence or a lesser sentence than the victim presumed the judge would impose. We could examine other mechanisms in the case of acquittal, which were mentioned earlier in the debate. Those matters should be examined together with sentencing generally and, as Deputy Howlin said, allowing the DPP to submit an appeal against what may be considered a lenient sentence or acquittal. I would like those matters to be teased out along with sentencing because they are all intertwined, which is the problem if we proceed as suggested by this section of the Bill.

See this speech in context