Dáil debates

Tuesday, 24 April 2007

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

 

9:00 pm

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Exactly. It will provide for the constitutional safety valve that exists in other areas as well. In particular, it ensures that the court can distinguish between gangland cases and other cases in which the convicted person may technically qualify to be treated in accordance with section 24, but where it would be disproportionate for him or her to be treated in such a manner. Such a circumstance could arise if an addict or a vagrant were to engage in aggravated burglary, for example, using an implement that is not a gun to threaten the victim. While such a crime would be serious — I do not suggest otherwise — it might be unfair to impose a sentence at a level required by section 24, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the lack of any link to organised crime. The maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is life imprisonment. A sentence of at least ten years would be called for under section 24 in the case of a second such offence.

The new subsection I propose would give the courts discretion in cases like that to which I have referred. It is designed as an anti-gangland, or anti-repeat of serious offences, measure. As we cannot define "gangland crime" in a clinical manner, we have decided on reflection, having listened to what was said during the debate in this House and outside it, to provide that a court can choose not to apply this provision if, in all the circumstances, it regards it as disproportionate. The court can disregard this guideline and should do so if it finds that a constitutional value is at issue.

In this section, the House is giving the courts a clear guideline which will ensure that cases of people behaving in a seriously criminal manner, and repeating such operations within seven years, are dealt with severely. There is a need for a deterrent. People who have served lengthy sentences for one of the serious crimes mentioned in Schedule 2 must realise that they will be given serious sentences if they are caught going back to their old ways, particularly in a gangland context. This provision is intended as a deterrent to ensure that those who spend all their lives participating in gangland crime do not think they will get successive soft sentences. Some such people optimistically think they can continue to dabble on the edges of gangland and organised crime.

Amendments Nos. 68, 70 and 71 have been tabled to improve the clarity of the Bill's cross-references. Amendments Nos. 168 to 171, inclusive, propose to delete a qualification that currently applies in the case of murder, which is that such an offence arises for consideration under Schedule 2 — offences for the purposes of Part 3 — only if it involves "the use of a firearm or an explosive". This limitation would omit all other murders and, equally, could include murders which are not related to gangland activity. It was decided, therefore, that the qualification was unhelpful and confusing.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.