Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

It strikes me that it is a reasonable approach to serious gangland crime that certain offences should attract substantial sentences if they, or offences of a similar category, are repeated. In that context, we should not be reluctant to provide a safety valve mechanism so that if the imposition of the three quarter sentence was gravely disproportionate, a court should not impose it. There is a proportionality obligation which is implicit from the case law cited by Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

I take Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's valid point about offences committed while in prison. If a person commits certain serious offences, is released and then commits another serious offence which falls into that category, in those circumstances, a person should know from the moment they leave jail for the first offence that if they ever commit such offences again they will face a heavy sentence. In other words, if they have done a serious term of imprisonment for a serious offence and commit a serious firearms offence on release, in those circumstances they will receive a very heavy sentence, as a matter of policy. That would be subject to the proviso that if it was grossly disproportionate it would not apply. If we are talking about the Oireachtas laying down policy guidelines, this is a policy guideline for the Judiciary.

If a person commits an offence in this category and comes back before the courts, having spent a long time in jail for an offence in this category, the norm is three quarters of the maximum, or ten years imprisonment, unless such a sentence would be disproportionate. People who have already been convicted of such offences will know that if they are caught again with, say, firearms in their cars, they must face up to the fact that they will be sent to prison for a long time, unless there is an excusing circumstance that makes this disproportionate.

With this in mind I am taking on board what is being said in this House and I appreciate the support for the principle of what is involved. This Bill seeks to lay down the rules for the guidance not only of the courts but of people contemplating getting involved in serious criminality. This applies particularly to those who have committed one serious offence because if they go back to that territory they can expect serious penalties. Such an approach would be in accordance with the scheme of the Bill as published.

Most people think robbery means only bank robbery but, unfortunately, robbery is also committed by a person who throws a victim against a wall and takes his or her wallet. As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe pointed out, such an act could be committed by a drunk or a crazed addict, rather than a person involved in gangland activities. With regard to causing serious harm, this offence does not require intent and can be committed by a person recklessly. In these circumstances we should not throw the net too widely.

If the principle of this is agreeable we should all understand that while gangs can engage in the distribution of child pornography, it does not necessarily follow that all child pornography distribution is done by members of gangs. I am now inclined to narrow the Schedule severely and to introduce the safety valve of proportionality. I wish to leave in place a clear guideline to the Judiciary that a repeat offence in this narrower category of offences should attract a severe penalty, unless it would be disproportionate.

This respects the Constitution, the roles of the Judiciary and so on. It also accords more faithfully to the scheme of the Bill as published than the comprehensive list of statutes mentioned in Schedule 2, which is too broad.

See this speech in context