Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

On Committee Stage I indicated I would look very carefully at this part of the Act to see precisely what we were trying to achieve and whether we had achieved it. We went through a radical revision in light of everything said in this House, having carefully listened to all the remarks made from every quarter. We have amended it to reflect what I believe is a consensus in this House on the issue, and I have done my utmost to be faithful to what I believe is where the centre of gravity of opinion in this House lies on this issue.

These amendments concern section 24 of the Bill and Schedule 2, which applies to both sections 24 and 25. Section 24 provides that where a person has been convicted on indictment of an offence in Schedule 2, and within seven years commits a further such offence, then the sentence for the second offence must be at least three quarters of the maximum provided for that second offence, or ten years where the maximum is life imprisonment.

The section has already been amended to provide that it only applies where the sentence for the first offence was at least five years imprisonment. As I indicated on Committee Stage I wanted to examine this further to see if it could be more tightly focused on what people would be happier to describe as gangland offenders. This group of amendments is intended to achieve this, although "gangland" will never be scientifically defined as a term.

A new interpretation section, to be section 24, is proposed in amendment No. 50, and it defines terms for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment No. 72 is consequential in that it deletes section 24(16) of the Bill, which sets out the necessary definitions at present.

Amendment No. 59 amends section 24 and deals with the calculation of the seven year period between the first and subsequent offences. This period is referred to as the specified period. The seven year period applies between the end of the sentence for the first offence and the date of commission of the subsequent offence. Where that period elapses without a subsequent offence having been committed, then this section will not apply.

The amendment gives further clarification on two issues. First, no period of imprisonment during the seven years for an offence, other than a period in respect of a qualifying offence in Schedule 2, is to interrupt the running of that seven year period. For example, a sentence of imprisonment for a road traffic offence will not be counted as road traffic offences do not feature in Schedule 2.

A sentence for a Schedule 2 offence which is the result of a summary conviction is not counted either. In effect, a period of imprisonment for an offence other than a qualifying Schedule 2 offence will not stop the clock and the seven year term will keep running. This qualification is aimed at highlighting the targeted nature of section 24, which is aimed at gangland offences and other convictions. Sentences are not to interfere with that focus on that category of offence.

The second issue addresses the question of serious offences committed while in prison. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised the point that people might direct crime from within prison, and as originally tendered, these people would be out of the net completely. There is clarification in that the section applies when a subsequent Schedule 2 offence is committed while serving the period of imprisonment for the first Schedule 2 offence. If a person commits two Schedule 2 offences, one organised from within prison — perpetrated on a colleague or organising an outside event — this provision will apply.

This section will normally apply where the person has reoffended within seven years of release at the end of the sentence for the first conviction. However, this amendment ensures that the section also applies where the offender commits a further offence under Schedule 2 while still serving the first sentence for the Schedule 2 offence. In that case the seven-year interval is simply irrelevant. The mandatory minimum sentence requirements of this section will apply to the second offence committed while still serving the sentence for the first offence.

Amendment No. 71 is related to amendment No. 59. Amendment No. 63 updates the subsection reference in section 24(2) and is consequential on the amendment to section 32 of the Bill. Section 24(2) lists the sections under which mandatory sentences are already in place to ensure that the more generalised arrangements for the application of mandatory minimum sentences in section 24 of this Bill do not replace or supersede any more particular existing arrangements for mandatory sentences. The reference being amended relates to reoffending as it arises under section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. A later amendment to section 32 of the Bill renumbers certain subsections of section 27 of the 1977 Act. I will not get into the tiny detail of those changes unless Members wish me to do so.

Amendment No. 57 is consequential on amendment No. 64, which proposes the inclusion of a new section 24(3) in the Bill. The purpose of the new subsection is to ensure that section 24 is not applied in a way that is disproportionate. It will ensure that the legislation will not have an unconstitutional binding effect on a court. This is a safety valve for the Judiciary, to put it bluntly. If, having looked at this provision, the courts decide that what the Oireachtas has intended is fine, constitutionally, but is disproportionate, they can decide not to proceed in such a manner.

See this speech in context