Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for not being present when it was my turn to be called.

We support the motivations behind the Bill. In Donegal, we lost two fine officers, Gary McLoughlin and Robbie McCallion, in 2009. Killed in the line of duty, they were the victims of reckless drivers. It was devastating for our communities and, most of all, their families. It was a sad time in Donegal, so I sympathise with the motivation behind the Bill. What we disagree with is mandatory sentencing. Unfortunately, it has not proven a good approach to law, as I will explain. The Bill seeks to introduce a mandatory scale of sentencing of up to ten years for the Judiciary to apply in the specific case of ramming a Garda vehicle. However, the current law provides for up to ten years' imprisonment for dangerous driving in addition to substantial fines. Given the circumstances of the case, it is for the Judiciary to impose a suitable sentence.

Related to the Bill is the wider issue of mandatory sentencing. Calls for mandatory sentencing feed into public distrust in a dangerous way that works to undermine and subvert the rule of law. The reality of mandatory sentencing is that it uses up scarce resources in terms of time and money when judges, in the interests of justice, must wrestle with ill-conceived laws. Such an approach would increase the number of trials and subsequent delays in the criminal justice system when people accused of offences that carry mandatory sentences pleaded not guilty.

Mandatory sentences contribute significantly to the cost of imprisonment. Such costs result in either more taxes on citizens or significant tax takes being diverted from hospitals and schools to fund the results of ill-conceived political projects. According to the Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT, for every $1 million spent on California's mandatory sentencing laws, 60 serious crimes are prevented. However, that same $1 million would prevent 160 serious crimes if spent on training and assistance for families at risk or 258 serious crimes if spent on encouraging children to graduate from high school.

If the intent of the Bill is to assist the Garda in carrying out its duties more effectively, I recommend that we consult the recent report of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate. It outlined that issues with vehicles continued to be a source of frustration for many gardaí, including vehicle allocation and concerns over whether some vehicles were fit for purpose. The ability to acquire vehicles is also constrained due to the requirement of adhering to the procurement process while attempting to purchase vehicles on the open market at a time when most vehicle stocks are depleted. Under the current budgetary process, the Garda is tied to an annual plan that does not adequately support a long-term vision. In cases where Garda cars are rammed, what are needed to protect gardaí are better, stronger and more powerful vehicles deployed in areas that are more likely to suffer such incidents.

In order to build public trust in the judicial function, my party and I propose that the State introduces a sentencing council that would provide sentencing guidelines to the Judiciary. Similar councils are in place in England, Wales and Scotland and comprise a good model. This would ensure that sentences handed out for criminal offences in courts are consistent and accountable. A key strength of the sentencing council model is that it involves a range of key stakeholders, such as victim support groups, academics, senior police officers, senior parole officers and the wider public in the process of establishing sentencing guidelines for the Judiciary. As members of the Judiciary would be the majority members of the sentencing council and a senior member of the Judiciary would chair it, they would still be central to the process. However, the sentencing guidelines issued would ensure that the Judiciary stuck to the range provided for the category of offence before it. For example, if we engaged with the public and people involved in the criminal justice system on the question of what the appropriate range of sentences for ramming Garda vehicles was, we could provide a range of sentencing options to judges that would have to be applied in every case. One could achieve the desired level of accountability without there being mandatory sentencing.

Under the council's sentencing guidelines, the Judiciary would also have to indicate clearly why it had sentenced an offender within that range, taking into consideration the impact on the victim and the blameworthiness of the offender. This would ensure consistency and accountability across the court system and the State. Our proposed sentencing council would develop sentencing guidelines, monitor their use and assess their impact on sentencing practice.

It may also be required to consider the impact of policy and legislative proposals on sentencing, when requested by the Government to do so; promote awareness among the public of the realities of sentencing; publish information on sentencing practice in our court system; consider the impact of sentencing decisions on victims; monitor the application of the guidelines, better to predict the effect of them; and play a greater part in promoting understanding of, and increasing public confidence in, sentencing and the criminal justice system.

Sinn Féin understands the motivation behind Deputy Griffin's Bill, but we need to say to the men and women of the Garda Síochána, who are at the front-line dealing with very dangerous criminals and protecting our communities, that we have robust laws and will give them robust resources to deal with that. This Bill is not the proper approach to take and, therefore, we cannot support it. Careful deliberation, consultation and work with the Garda to ensure they receive the resources needed to apply existing laws is needed.

See this speech in context