Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

When the debate adjourned earlier, we were discussing a register of sentences. A number of options are open to us on the broader question of sentencing guidelines. In continental Europe under the civil law system, which is somewhat more structured than our system, minimum and maximum sentences are provided for. In general under the common law system, it is for the Judiciary to decide within certain maxima what sentence is appropriate. I agree with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe that it is not satisfactory for individual courts to operate so much in isolation from each other. Consistency requires a collective effort. It is important for us to have a means of harnessing what I believe is good will on the part of the Judiciary towards making that effort to achieve consistency. The Denham committee, which I mentioned earlier, is an important forum in which to address the issue.

It appears to be implicit in some of the reports I have read recently that if something is going wrong with sentencing it is the function of the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal sentences with which he is unhappy. If it is going wrong, it is not fair to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal all these cases to get it right. There is a tendency in some areas, and it is by no means prevalent, to do some hand washing and say that if there is a major problem, the Director of Public Prosecutions would be appealing the cases and that since he is not appealing a significant number of cases, there is not a significant problem. There is a significant problem with consistency of sentencing.

Although it might have been reassuring to somebody in my position to watch the "Prime Time" programme a few nights ago, in which a jury was more severe in its attitude than the Judiciary appears to be in respect of a number of specimen cases——

See this speech in context