Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue matter and I thank the Minister for attending to respond. Over recent months since becoming my party's spokesperson on justice, I have met a number of families affected by the devastating impact of negligent driving, particularly under the influence of alcohol. I am sure all Deputies in this House have come across such tragic cases. There is a responsibility on us as legislators to ensure that the legal system acts as a protector of the victims and delivers justice.

In recent weeks we have seen legal cases where the sentences handed down have been substantially less than the maximum level allowed by the law, despite the gravity of the case involved. In my home county of Limerick last week, a particularly sad case involving the deaths of a husband and wife at the hands of a drunk driver, who had almost twice the legal limit of alcohol, came to a head. The convicted man had a record of endangering the community, with a number of previous convictions for dangerous driving and speeding. He pleaded not guilty but was driving on the wrong side of the road giving the victims no chance to avoid him. The convicted man was given five years. While the maximum sentence in these cases is ten years, with remission he will probably serve only four. The six children of the victims are left without their parents and the community they lived in has been robbed of their contribution. The convicted drunk driver will lose only four years of his life.

This week I was contacted by a family in another similar case which is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on an ongoing legal case. Suffice it to say the circumstances are equally tragic and devastating to the family involved. They are deeply concerned by the prospect of ineffectual sentencing and feel a pressing need for justice for the lost one involved.

I wish to raise three pressing issues with the Minister arising from these cases. The first is mandatory sentencing in cases of dangerous driving causing death. In this regard, today I published the Judicial Sentencing Commission Bill which aims to set clear sentencing guidelines without undue interference with judicial independence. This Bill will help ensure that sentencing will have greater stability, predictability and uniformity. This will avoid the scenes of disappointed families of victims that we have seen over the years. We will bring the Bill to Second Stage in the near future and I hope the Government will support it.

The second is to make leaving the scene of an accident an indictable offence. As it stands, leaving the scene of an accident is a summary offence. However, in the case of leaving the scene of an accident causing a fatality, it at least must be an indictable offence with a trial by jury. Fianna Fáil has drafted a road traffic Bill to deal with this issue and will put it forward to the Oireachtas in the near future. Again, I hope the Minister will treat it in an open spirit.

The third is to extend the time limits in which to test for drugs and alcohol. The existing time limits for testing for drugs and alcohol have been exposed by cases about which I have been contacted. By leaving the scene, an accused contaminates all the evidence. After three hours he or she cannot be tested for alcohol or drugs. Perhaps the Minister can explore extending these timeframes to ensure those who leave the scene of an accident do not evade full responsibility for their actions.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. We have made considerable advances in improving safety on our roads in recent years. Both 2011 and last year witnessed the lowest recorded number of road fatalities on Irish roads since records began back in 1959. Indeed, last year was the seventh consecutive year that the number of road fatalities fell. However, the number of fatalities to date this year, at 32, is a matter of great concern and should strengthen our resolve not to let complacency set in.

Road traffic legislation and the enforcement of that legislation have played a significant role in our road safety success to date. Ensuring that legislation in the area of road safety is robust, proportional and reflective of the needs of policymakers remains a constant challenge. Regular reviews of existing provisions is a requirement that my Department takes seriously and, in doing so, consults a wide range of key stakeholders, both within and outside of the Department.

Road traffic legislation provides separately for the offences of drink-driving and dangerous driving causing death. Sections 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 provide for the specific offences as determined by the alcohol concentration in breath, blood or urine specimens and set out the maximum fine and the term of imprisonment that may be imposed by the judge hearing the case. The decision on whether to impose a fine and imprisonment is entirely at the discretion of the judge.

Separately, section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 provides that where a person drives a vehicle in a public place in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, is or is likely to be dangerous to the public, he or she commits an offence under the section. The judge hearing the case and having given regard to all the circumstances of the case, including evidence that the person was found to have a blood-alcohol concentration level in excess of the permitted levels, will take such circumstances into account when determining the penalties to be applied. In doing so and where a person is convicted on indictment of committing an offence under the section where death or serious bodily harm has been caused to another person, that person is liable to a maximum fine of €20,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Once again, the level of the fine, whether imprisonment will be imposed and for how long are at the discretion of the judge.

Mandatory imprisonment in criminal cases is generally confined to the most serious of offences, such as murder and certain drug offences. In all other instances, including manslaughter, discretion must remain with the judge hearing the case so that when convicting a person and applying sanctions, recognition can be given to all the associated circumstances and a determination made that reflects those circumstances. Accordingly, I do not propose at this time to amend existing legislation to provide for mandatory imprisonment in dangerous driving cases.

Section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 requires that where injury is caused or property is damaged following a road traffic collision, the driver must stop the vehicle and keep it near or at the scene of the collision for a reasonable period. The section also provides for the reporting of the collision to a member of the Garda Síochána as soon as possible thereafter in the situation where a member of the Garda does not attend the scene of the collision. Penalties, both financial and optional imprisonment on summary conviction, are also provided for.

I am finalising the road traffic Bill 2013 which I intend to introduce to the Oireachtas in the coming weeks. It is not intended to escalate the contravention of an offence under the section from a summary offence to an indictable one at this time but I am open to reconsidering that and will study the Deputy's Bill when it is published.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply in which he addressed a number of aspects which come under his remit as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in terms of various offences under the Road Traffic Acts. I also mentioned the area of inconsistency in general. The Bill that we published today proposes a very constructive role for a new body, a judicial sentencing council, which would not be a new quango. I know the Minister has a particular interest in erasing quangos. He raised the matter frequently in opposition and is following through in government. The body could easily be subsumed into part of the existing Courts Service. Such a 14-member body exists in the UK with eight members of the Judiciary and six other non-judges coming from areas such as probation, health, education and policing. It draws up guidelines for sentencing which eliminate inconsistency. We get considerable exposure to the UK broadcast and print media. We do not see the coverage of inconsistent sentencing in the UK that we have here with some road traffic offences as I have outlined and particularly with some serious sexual assault crimes. There has been significant inconsistency in sentencing here.

Uniformity of sentencing would be of assistance to the Judiciary not only in the Dublin area, where much of the inconsistency emanates because of the concentration there of court sittings, but throughout the country. Different sentences in respect of the same crimes are being handed down. This matter needs to be addressed in a constructive fashion and is the purpose of the Bill moved in the House this morning. I acknowledge this issue does not come directly within the responsibility of the Minister, Deputy Varadkar but it is important that I mention it.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy raised two issues, the first of which relates to a driver leaving the scene of a collision and the second which relates to sentencing. On the first issue, I am open to the suggestion of making leaving the scene of a collision an indictable rather than summary offence. However, a complication arises in terms of proportionality. I would need to study the matter further and to seek the advice of the Attorney General on it because as the Deputy will be aware, under the Constitution crimes must be dealt with proportionately. As such, the offence applicable would have to be similar to that which pertains in relation to, for example, leaving the scene of a serious assault. In other words, we could not provide that it is an indictable offence to leave the scene of a road traffic collision and not an indictable offence to leave the scene of an assault. I will have to seek the advice of the Attorney General in regard to whether that is consistent and proportional. I am however open to the Deputy's suggestion in this regard.

On mandatory sentencing, I do not favour it. It generally tends not to work. Judges do need discretion. We are all aware that in some cases there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This is the reason we have courts, judges and juries to make decisions. There is also the issue of where the crime occurs in another country and there is a risk of acquittal of a guilty person because the judge or jury believes the mandatory sentence is too high in the circumstances and the person, rather than being convicted of murder, is acquitted or convicted of a lesser offence because the judge or jury does not believe the minimum sentence is appropriate. I was interested to hear a person from the Rape Crisis Centre say in a recent interview that this organisation is against mandatory sentencing in the case of rape for the type of reasons I have outlined. There is an interesting debate to be had on the issue.

On consistency, I agree with the Deputy that people need to have confidence and faith in the justice system and will not have it if there is inconsistency in sentencing. It is for the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to respond to that issue. While I do believe a set of guidelines would be beneficial, whether a judicial council is the appropriate mechanism in this regard I do not know. The Deputy is right to raise the issue of consistency, although I do not know if it is a problem or is just reported as so. However, the issue needs to be addressed.