Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their response to the legislation. I am pleased they have accepted the Bill and that it can proceed to Committee Stage. It is a short and technical Bill, but it is significant. I thank the Deputies for their support and I welcome their comments.

Deputy O'Callaghan made thoughtful comments on sentencing. Deputy O'Brien raised the question of mandatory sentencing, an issue that arises quite often. The expert reports I have received in recent times do not suggest further mandatory sentencing but, as the Deputy said, people in the public domain often think it is the way forward. However, when detailed consideration has been given to it, it has not been recommended to me in the reports and is not seen as the most effective way to proceed. That does not stop public demand for it at times, which is quite understandable. When people see horrific crimes being committed they think a mandatory sentence is the best way to deal with them, but that is not the recommendation I have received.

On the particular point Deputy O'Brien raised, section 2(j) provides for a new subsection (18)(A) which sets out the procedure relating to the remaining portion of a suspended sentence when part only of a sentence is revoked under the subsection. Where a court revokes a suspended sentence in part, a further order may be made suspending the balance of the sentence and the order will be regarded as if it were an order to suspend a sentence under subsection (1). In this way the section 99 procedure relating to a revocation of a suspended sentence will apply to the remaining part of a suspended sentence. This reflects what currently happens in practice.

Section 99 of the 2006 Act was a significant legislative development in the context of sentencing. It enshrined in statute the power to suspend a sentence but provided for revocation of the suspended sentence in the event of the commission of another triggering offence. It was very important when it was introduced. Prior to its introduction in legislation in 2006, suspended sentences were handed down under common law but were seldom activated and did not therefore act as a meaningful deterrent to repeat offending. Section 99 was designed to ensure that persons did not get away with breaching conditions of their suspended sentences. However, it gave rise to operational difficulties, as Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned, mainly in respect of the sequencing of court hearings for the triggering offence, the revocation of the suspended sentence and with regard to the appeals mechanism. This resulted in a number of legal challenges which culminated in the High Court hearing last April.

We are correcting the deficiencies that were identified by the High Court. I have already given the details of the changes and how they will operate in making necessary and desirable improvements to the suspending sentence regime, which is such an integral part of the judicial sentencing system. Again, I thank the Deputies for their support of the Bill and commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context