Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill before the House. I am pleased to get the opportunity to discuss both the legislation and the topic more broadly. It is legislation that Sinn Féin broadly supports and we are happy to engage with the Minister for Justice and Equality on the relevant Stages as it progresses through the Houses.

The Bill appears to contain what my party believes to be changes in the law that are sensible and necessary, particularly in respect of the equalisation of proposed sentencing between genders. Although it is a step forward in laws and cases involving sexual offences, it is somewhat piecemeal and much more could be done regarding consistency in sentencing, a point that my colleague, Deputy Ó Laoghaire, has previously raised with the Minister. This relates to sentencing guidelines, a point I intend to return to and one on which I hope the Minister can provide some commentary.

The Bill has two primary purposes. The first is to amend the Punishment of Incest Act 1908 to address a gender anomaly in penalties, something we would support. It also seeks to amend the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 to provide for presumptive minimum sentences for repeat sex offenders, which we would also support. The first issue was raised during the debate on the 2017 Act when my colleague, Deputy Jonathan O’Brien, and Fianna Fáil's Deputy Jim O’Callaghan raised concerns around the approach to harmonisation. They argued that the benefit to the public of achieving harmonisation by providing for a sentence of up to life imprisonment had not been demonstrated. It appears the Minister has listened to this point and responded in this Bill with a sentence of up to ten years, to apply to men and women.

There are still anomalies in the law on incest that require further consideration. The wording still implies that a woman cannot initiate incest, as it is worded, "any woman who permits". Likewise, it is limited to carnal knowledge and therefore excludes acts of abuse and incest that fall short of intercourse. It also excludes certain same sex relationships. These are elements that require amendment and I ask the Minister to consider this an opportunity to address them.

The significant amendment to the Act of 2017 is detailed and welcome. Where an offender is convicted of a sexual offence listed in the Schedule to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 and is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of at least five years, and is subsequently – within a period of ten years – convicted of a further offence listed in the Schedule, the court shall, when imposing sentence for that offence, specify the minimum term of imprisonment to be served by the person. The minimum period of imprisonment shall be three quarters of the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law in respect of such an offence and, where the maximum term is life imprisonment, the minimum shall be specified as a term of not less than ten years. The court will have discretion in the application of the sentence if it is satisfied that this would be disproportionate in all the circumstances of the case. Section 25 can be triggered by a subsequent offence committed while in prison.

The Minister will agree it takes two or three readings of the specific proposal to understand it entirely. Essentially, it means that with a person who has committed a serious sexual offence, in the calculation of the sentence of a further relevant sexual offence, the length of the sentence handed down for that second offence will be a minimum of three quarters of the first sentence. This provision is similar to provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2007 and, as in that Act, it includes scope for deviation from the minimum sentence where it is deemed disproportionate. Hence it is a presumptive minimum as opposed to a mandatory minimum. This has been described by Mr. Thomas O’Malley in Sentencing Law and Practiceas "a significant safety valve".

This makes sense for the most part in that those who repeatedly offend, carrying out such heinous crimes and leaving a trail of devastation in their wake, have clearly not engaged in or benefited from any rehabilitation attempts or services provided to them, making them a live danger to others.

Sexual assault, or any crime of a sexual nature, is a very serious crime that must carry one of the highest penalties. I need not go into the detail of both the psychological and physical scars that assault leaves on any victim. While not perfect, the law around sexual offences is ever changing, but we can still do much more in our efforts to protect victims of sexual offences, be that in their treatment by the courts, and in increasing funding to services to deal with the victims of such crimes.

More broadly, it is important that the Garda is recording its data accurately as it has a knock-on effect on the wider system and how we, as a society, deal with offences, in particular, sexual assaults. There are issues in the Garda about the culture and understanding of the importance of accurate data, that the current system being used by An Garda Síochána is not fit for purpose, and that its IT systems are in dire need of upgrading. This matter was also touched on by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. The Minister must address this as a matter of priority.

As I stated at the outset, a better and more comprehensive approach to reform of sentencing where it relates to sexual offences relates to sentencing guidelines. The Minister has agreed with my colleague, Deputy Ó Laoghaire, that this issue is one that he supports, and, indeed, that needs to be progressed.

It is vitally important that the public has confidence that the courts will hand down appropriate sentences that are proportionate to the crimes committed. Unfortunately, that is currently not the case. There are wide disparities in a number of areas, including sexual offences. Some sentences have drawn considerable comment and, indeed, anger. Time and again, we have seen sentences handed down that are, quite frankly, inadequate. There are undoubtedly issues relating to inconsistency, leniency, and light sentences. There are problems in other areas unrelated to what is being discussed here today, such as assault, and in regard to road traffic issues. Research conducted on judicial sentencing habits has shown sentence lengths ranging from 14 days to five months in an assault case, while, for a theft case, sentences ranged between 30 days and nine months, and in road traffic and burglary cases, between two and 12 months. As a result, the public does not trust the justice system to deliver punishments that fit the crime. As legislators, we have a duty to address what is a considerable issue in relation to sentencing. It is my party's belief that collating, publishing and ensuring judges have these parameters is the best way to ensure consistency in sentencing.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire met the Minister over the summer and the Minister indicated that minimum sentence guidelines would be introduced at the next Stage of the Judicial Council Bill 2017. I hope that Stage will commence as a matter of urgency, as it would impact the specifics discussed within this Bill as well as addressing disparity in areas such as the ones I have outlined.

My party will be supporting this Bill. Sexual offences are especially heinous, intrusive, inherently violent, and leave long-lasting damage. It is important that we have strong enough legislation to tackle this to ensure that the sentences attached are fitting of the crime.

See this speech in context