Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Although short in length, the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2024 is very significant legislation. It addresses important constitutional infirmities in law that were recently identified by the High Court. The High Court ruled that a person who commits murder as a child but turns 18 years of age before he or she is sentenced cannot be subject to the mandatory life sentence for murder. The specific purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to disapply the mandatory life sentence for murder for those who age out, that is, turn 18 years old before sentencing. The changes I am introducing will ensure the courts have appropriate options available when sentencing in these cases, including the option to sentence the convicted person to life imprisonment. The courts will also have the option to sentence a convicted person to a determinate sentence.

I begin by outlining the background to the Bill and why there is a need for these urgent legislative amendments. In its judgment in the case of Amah and Musueni v. Ireland and others on 2 September, the High Court found that it was unconstitutional to impose the mandatory life sentence for murder on a person who committed the offence when he or she was still a child but was sentenced after his or her 18th birthday. The case was taken by two persons who were 17 when they were charged with murder but have turned 18 in the interim. If found guilty, they would be subject to a mandatory life sentence under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990. That Act provides for a mandatory life sentence of imprisonment for any person who commits murder.

Section 156 of the Children Act 2001, however, creates an exception to this for children, so the mandatory life sentence does not apply to children who are sentenced as children. The Act provides for a sentencing regime for children which allows the court to consider the child's age and maturity level at the time he or she committed the offence, even in the case of the heinous offence of murder.

The Legislature has recognised that a more nuanced approach to sentencing principles is appropriate where the offender is a child under the age of 18 years. His or her age and level of maturity may be taken into consideration by the sentencing court when determining the penalty to be imposed. In criminal justice proceedings, however, it is the date of the sentencing hearing that determines how offenders should be sentenced. This means that if a child happens to turn 18 before his or her sentencing date, he or she cannot benefit from the Children Act. Thus, under the current law, where an aged-out child offender is found guilty, he or she will automatically be sentenced to imprisonment for life on conviction for murder.

The High Court was clear that this unequal treatment of offenders who have committed a murder while children but are sentenced differently because of the date of sentencing is unconstitutional. The High Court held that to impose the mandatory life sentence on a child who "ages out" would be a breach of his or her rights under Article 40.1 of the Constitution because of this inequality compared with other children who commit the offence of murder. A child convicted of murder may receive a life sentence, whereas a child convicted of-----

See this speech in context