John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

I will speak about the judicial process by which individuals end up in places such as Mountjoy and, possibly, Thornton Hall. I will speak specifically about mandatory sentences for the possession and sale of certain amounts of drugs and the impact the most recent Criminal Justice Act 2007 has had and how it is viewed by the Judiciary. I have corresponded extensively with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Courts Service and have come to the conclusion that no one, either in the Oireachtas, the Department or in the Courts Service, is aware whether the Judiciary is abiding by the guidelines set down by the Oireachtas in this House in 2007. I do not believe the Courts Service is active in getting that information. Given the effect of the illegal drugs trade on society I would consider that reasonably important information that needs to be gathered and assessed by this House.

Considering the mandatory drug provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 are a rewrite of the impotent provisions included in the Criminal Justice Act 1999, it is time to determine whether the Judiciary is taking the views of the Legislature seriously enough. If the answer is that the Judiciary is not abiding by the new guidelines, it is time to consider the issue of its discretionary powers. In regard to the possession of large amounts of drugs and the sentences being handed down, the sentencing regime is not having a substantial impact on the overall levels of importation of drugs and on the general drug culture. This is after much hard talk from the benches opposite in 2006 and 2007.

In April 2008 I received a response from the Courts Service on this issue. It said that the number of people who received the mandatory ten-year minimum sentence for misuse of drugs under Part 5 of the 2007 Act is 22 but it added that part of the sentence was suspended in 12 of these cases due to exceptional and specific circumstances. I wrote again asking the Courts Service to specify the reasons a suspended sentence was handed down in those 12 cases. On one hand, it said the courts have full discretion. It was made clear that there is clear and detailed legislative language the Judiciary need to act within and take account of.

It appears to me that every one of these court cases needs to be analysed to determine whether the Judiciary is acting in accordance with the legislation and within the guidelines set down. If the Judiciary is not acting in accordance with the legislation it is time for the House to consider the Judiciary's discretionary powers in the matter of mandatory sentences for the possession of drugs.

We in this House have a serious role to play in the area of illegal drugs which revolves around sentencing. At the very least, we need to determine on an active and regular basis, whether the legislation that purports to act as the main deterrent to drug importation, trafficking, and the sale and supply of drugs is working. As it stands, the Government agency tasked with determining whether the legislation in question is being acted upon is not capable of answering the most basic questions regarding the implementation of such a pivotal Act and its provisions. This is an issue about which the House should be concerned.

See this speech in context