Dáil debates

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Restorative Justice (Reparation of Victims) Bill 2013: Second Stage [Private Members]

 

7:45 pm

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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

This Bill seeks to introduce a requirement for offenders to make reparation for damage caused by crimes. The reparation can relate to medical costs for victims or damage caused to property. The Bill also provides for recognition to be afforded to offenders who voluntarily make reparation prior to trial. It also provides for the making of reparation orders by a court for the purpose of compelling an offender to make reparation.

Before speaking on the Bill I should make it quite clear that the Bill has absolutely nothing to do with sentencing, and I will not speak about mandatory, minimum or maximum sentencing. I have gone into great detail in introducing this Bill, as I have spoken with gardaí, who were extremely helpful, and a legal team which was very good in giving information and contributing to the layout of the Bill. I have also spoken to community groups and people who deal with victims of crime. Some of those groups were represented at a press conference this morning.

Between 2004 and 2012 the rate of home burglaries in Ireland increased by an average of 13%, with the increase as high as 40% in some parts of the country. Current statistics indicate that one in every 222 people is a victim of burglary every year. Based on Central Statistics Office, CSO, information for 2012, 75 burglaries are reported daily nationwide, equating to one burglary every 19 minutes. In rural areas in particular, the incidence of burglary has increased, and this has been compounded by the closure of rural Garda stations and the improved road network, which gives urban gangs ready access to rural areas.

The average value of goods taken in a burglary has been estimated at €1,868, but the consequences for victims go far beyond a missing television or laptop. The American use of the term "home invasion" to describe a burglary sums up the nature of a domestic burglary to a victim. A report by Eircom Phonewatch indicated that one in five victims rated burglary as being as upsetting as losing a job, and there is a growing body of international research on the health impacts of burglaries for victims. A study by a North Carolina school of medicine on different types of crime revealed that burglary victims compared the experience to being personally violated. Many victims also have anxiety disorders and problems with sleeping months after the burglary. Children may also be negatively affected by burglaries, especially if they see how hard it is for parents to deal with burglary.

Home burglaries maim and traumatise victims for the rest of their lives. They also induce a feeling of violation for the victim in the very place in which they are entitled to feel most secure. There is no doubt every Deputy sitting here is aware of a case in which a victim of home burglary could not settle into a house after the event, and many have had to leave their homes. The entire country was horrified to read about the shocking case in west Clare recently in which a 68-year-old man abandoned his home and checked into a nursing home after being terrorised.

Recently, the Irish legal process has become increasingly effective in listening to the voices of victims of crime, and for that it should be commended. The victims' charter marked an important development by firmly establishing that throughout the system victims have needs which must be addressed. The fact that the State funds voluntary organisations in supporting victims of crime is also welcome. However, although victims are increasingly considered a stakeholder in the criminal process, many of the needs of victims are not met. Over a third of criminal offences heard in the Circuit Court every year relate to fraud, theft and burglary, and there is no minimum or mandatory sentence for burglars. Two out of the three people brought to court in connection with the case of Mr. Michael McMahon in Ennis walked free, and I know of cases in which people with 100 convictions have been freed. Only a fifth of burglary convictions lead to jail terms of more than five years, and almost half attract sentences of three years, or far less at times. Adding insult to injury, many robberies are carried out by repeat offenders, and half of the convicted burglars who serve sentences in the community reoffend within three years, according to CSO and Probation Service figures. The Minister for Justice and Equality has indicated that the rate is far too high.

Criminals know there are fewer gardaí on the roads and as a result they know there is less chance of being caught. I am proposing a deterrent of a different nature, as it puts the victim first. Last year calls to the national crime victims' helpline relating to property crime doubled. Victims of a burglary or robbery accounted for almost a quarter of all contacts during the year and representatives of the helpline indicated that these burglaries had a major long-term effect on people in an emotional and financial sense. On top of this stress, victims face layers of red tape with insurance companies in trying to recoup some losses, which is not right.

Compensation for victims of crime has been established as a key right in a number of jurisdictions. The European Council directive on compensation to crime victims, into which this Government has opted, requires all member states to have a national scheme guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation to victims of crime. There are other pieces of EU law facilitating the provision of compensation from the offender to crime victims. There is a regulation on jurisdictional enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which provides that a victim may sue an offender for damages in the same court which deals with the criminal proceedings if possible under national law. In this country, neither the criminal injuries compensation tribunal nor section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 applies to victims of burglary.

It is here that the State fails in its duty to offer the fair and appropriate compensation to victims of crime to which we have committed in the European Union. The Criminal Justice Act 1993, section 6, provides that, where a defendant is convicted of an offence, the court may make an order requiring him or her to pay compensation for personal injury or loss suffered by the victim as a result of the offence. The decision on whether the compensation order should be made is at the discretion of the court. This fails victims.

I propose that judges order those found guilty of burglary, regardless of whether a custodial or community sentence is handed down, to repay the costs of what they have stolen and the damage caused. That is restorative justice and reparation of victims. It has been said that restorative justice includes the victim meeting the perpetrator. All statistics show that most victims do not want to do that. They are too traumatised to meet that person and many are afraid. It is not included in the Bill because I have spoken to many victims and victim support groups and they want compensation. They want to be heard. Victims need Government support.

This Bill proposes restorative justice, a response to crime that focuses on restoring the losses suffered by victims, holding offenders accountable for the harm they have caused. It is difficult to put a monetary value on the harm. Jewellery and cash account for approximately three-quarters of all items reportedly stolen in burglaries. Approximately €10.7 million worth of jewellery and cash was taken in burglaries in the last six months of 2013. Sentimental items, such as wedding rings, cannot be replaced. It would give victims some satisfaction to know there is a price to be paid for breaking into their homes. Restorative justice is based on the idea that because crime hurts, justice should heal. The victim of a burglary deserves justice in the same way as any other victim. If that justice has to come about via deductions from a criminal’s means of living, be it wages, pension or social welfare, so be it. I have no doubt the argument will be made that the Bill’s proposals infringe on the rights of the accused in some way. I am more interested in defending the rights of homeowners than in someone who wants to break into a home to steal and make a person’s life miserable. We need to send a clear message to burglars that there is a price to be paid for breaking into someone’s home.

By this time tomorrow night hundreds of homes will have been broken into throughout the country. People’s lives will have been changed forever because personal items will have been stolen, their homes violated, money taken and they may have been injured. We owe it to the victims to do this. Everyone knows I am a socialist and believe firmly in rehabilitation. I do not believe in turning the key and throwing it away. I have always spoken out for victims and for human rights. This Bill aims to protect the human rights of thousands of victims throughout the country.

It is not right, whether somebody receives social welfare or earns large sums, that he or she can violate another person's home and steal money and property. It is not right that he or she may not face even a custodial or community sentence. It is not right that he or she may be given bail but it is right that victims are heard. At the very least he or she must pay back what has been taken. I cannot put my hand in someone’s pocket whether I am unemployed or not and steal from it. If I am caught I must pay it back. Many argue the person may be unemployed or not have money. I have great sympathy for people who are unemployed but that does not give them, or anyone who is working, the right to violate a person’s human right.

When I raised this on Leaders’ Questions some months ago the Tánaiste indicated if this Bill came before the Dáil the Government would look on it favourably. I have shown the Bill to members of the Garda Síochána, who have been very good to me, and to victims' groups all over the country. I have met barristers and people who have been victimised. I made a point of speaking to people in my city. I went to 30 homes last week and this is what they want. They urge the Government to do this. Will the Minister of State support this Bill? If he wants to propose amendments he can show them to me. I would be very careful in rejecting this Bill if I were the Government. It is the first time a restorative justice, reparation of victims Bill has come before the Dáil and hundreds of thousands of people are looking for restorative justice and their human rights.

7:55 pm

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Restorative Justice (Reparation of Victims) Bill 2013. I thank and commend Deputy Halligan for putting this Bill together and for bringing it before the House. It is excellent work because it puts victims first and puts forward solutions to crime and justice issues. This is not the first time Independent Deputies have shown the lead on issues of national importance or brought legislation to the House.

It is also very relevant to the debate today when the Minister for Justice and Equality has once again taken his eye off the ball of crime and justice issues. It is a disgrace that serious issues do not receive the time and emphasis they deserve. The Minister shafts whistleblowers and is involved in cover-ups and spin, while citizens are robbed, burgled or shot down on the streets. The Minister does not have the courtesy to attend this debate tonight. These are the issues that need to be dealt with. It is unacceptable that the Minister for Justice and Equality does not listen to the strong views of the majority in this House. It is a disgrace that he does not listen to the citizens or pay heed to the whistleblowers, distinguished people who have done this State a great service.

There are many burglaries in many communities, events about which the upper echelons and the elite do not hear. Most of the people being robbed are poor. Working class people are being hammered and others turn a blind eye. Many crimes are not reported. There is widespread intimidation. Families are threatened every night with guns or barrels of petrol placed outside their houses with threats of being burnt out if they say anything. These people need our help. We need to consider common sense solutions.

The Bill seeks to introduce a requirement for offenders to make a reparation for the damage caused by their crimes.

The reparations could pay for victims' medical costs or repairs to damaged property. The Bill also provides for recognition to be afforded to offenders who voluntarily make reparations prior to their trials and for court orders to compel offenders to make reparations.

Two particularly important sections are sections 5 and 6. Section 5 enables an offender to make pretrial reparations in respect of the cost of medical treatment. That is a common sense provision. Section 6 would enable an offender to make reparation for the cost of replacing or repairing items of property. Many people are under financial pressure in this time of austerity and they need and deserve any few euro they can get. This legislation aims at supporting victims and making sure offenders understand the consequences of their actions.

I want to mention the sad hit and run case of Shane O'Farrell. The perpetrator had more than 40 previous convictions and was at large on 2 August 2011 when he killed the 23 year old Shane O'Farrell. The O'Farrell family feel let down by the justice system of this State. This is another miscarriage of justice for victims and their families. I commend my colleague, Deputy Halligan, on bringing this Bill before the House and I urge all Deputies to support it.

8:05 pm

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Halligan for tabling this Bill. I will focus my remarks on the crime of burglary, which is particularly difficult for people. As gardaí who have responded to burglaries point out, the repercussions extend beyond the property that is stolen to emotional impacts that can last a very long time. Sometimes people never again feel safe in their homes. It is a civil right to feel safe in one's own home. I recently received an e-mail from an individual who wrote that she and her husband put every penny together to make a deposit on their house in 2007. They now have one child and another is on the way. Their house and the neighbouring house have been burgled and a car parked across the road was broken into. I know of housing estates in north County Kildare where practically every house has been burgled. The victims are often working to put every penny together to pay their mortgages. At the very least they should be able to feel safe in their own homes.

Restorative justice should not be used to mitigate responsibility but it could add to the consequences. It can be appropriate in the case of low level crimes, including in particular youth anti-social behaviour and vandalism. However, it requires an investment in police and community time. The victim rather than the offender should have the choice in deciding whether to permit reparations and the payment of reparations should not be allowed to diminish the legal process. Depending on the crime, some victims may wish to see the offender face prison.

Burglary is a difficult crime to solve. The ratio of Garda resources around the country is unbalanced. With the exception of Dublin and Limerick, there is a weak connection between recorded crime statistics and the level of service available. Divisions in Kildare and Meath fare worst, with 661 people per garda in Kildare and 628 in Meath. These figures compare badly Sligo and Leitrim, with 317 people per garda. Detection rates of selected common crimes reveal a similar or significantly worse level of criminality in Kildare compared to other divisions. Kildare had the fourth highest rate for detected burglaries in 2012, as well as the fifth highest rate for robbery, extortion and hijacking offences. There is a direct relationship between these rates and the allocation of resources. The seven Deputies from County Kildare sought to meet the Garda Commissioner on this issue. We met with an assistant commissioner who told us that resources are organised on the "what you have you hold" principle. The policing plans laid before this House every year purport to take into consideration demographics, crime statistics and available personnel but they do no such thing. Even in respect of diversion programmes for young people, which are significantly less expensive than locking people up, Kildare has two Garda youth units for 210,000 people. Tipperary has four units for 158,000 people and Kerry has six units for 145,000 people. Kildare has a disproportionately young population. I do not argue for reductions in Tipperary and Kerry but resources in Kildare need to increase if we are to divert people from crime.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Restorative Justice (Reparation of Victims) Bill 2013 and I commend my colleague, Deputy Halligan, on bringing it before the House. I urge the Government to accept the Bill so that it can become part of our criminal justice system. The contributions thus far have focused on burglary rates across the State. The burglary rate increased by 13% between 2004 and 2012 and in certain parts of the country it increased by more than 40%. It appears that criminals are responding to the cuts in Garda numbers by stepping up their activities because they know there is a strong likelihood that they will get away with their crimes. In my county of Donegal, a number of aggravated burglaries have been perpetrated against elderly people. In one case an elderly woman was unable to return to her home after she experienced an aggravated burglary and has since died in a nursing home. Over the past several weeks, thousands of people have attended meetings across County Donegal to highlight their concerns about burglaries and the impunity the preparators appear to enjoy.

This legislation deals with restorative justice. If it is applied to the crime of burglary, it would allow compensation to be paid to a victim for loss of property and personal injury. That is an important part of the legislation. Restorative justice is well understood across society, particularly in the context of anti-social behaviour, joy riding and other less serious crimes.

Communities understand what is involved where perpetrators of crime do work within the community to reflect their view that they know that what they have done is wrong.

However, this Bill does things differently, which is welcome, and puts the victim of the crime at the centre of the process. It has been recognised by victims' groups that victims feel left out in the criminal justice process. Upon enactment of this legislation, the perpetrator of the crime will have a direct responsibility to provide reparation to the victims of his or her crime, and that is an important principle to establish.

The Bill provides for a system of pre-trial and post-trial reparation whereby somebody who is due to be tried for a series of burglaries or whatever can, in advance of the trial, start the process of reparation, and this can be taken into account when it comes to sentencing for the crime. There are instances in which a form of reparation such as this may be more appropriate. I refer to young first-time offenders who are caught early. The prison system is not the way to deal with them because in prison they learn how to become real criminals and come out to continue a life of crime, whereas a system of reparation such as this will make them understand the need to compensate their victim and force them to think about the impact of their crime on the victim and the hurt caused. That could play an important role in diverting offenders away from a life of crime that the criminal justice system is not able to play. While prison is supposed to be rehabilitative, it is not. It breeds, rather than rehabilitates, criminals. A system such as this could have the potential in those circumstances to allow offenders to be diverted away from crime in the future.

What is proposed in this legislation is not intended to be a replacement for those who need a custodial sentence for the crimes that they have committed. Along with a custodial sentence, there can be the reparation as well. That is a welcome part of it too. I commend the Bill to the House.

8:15 pm

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too compliment Deputy Halligan on bringing forward this Bill and raising it here on Leaders' Questions. He gave plenty of notice of it. If the so-called reforming Minister was interested, he would be here tonight.

It is important that we go out and support the community. At present, the community cannot see any justice out there. People are under siege on a daily basis from robberies, intimidation, all kinds of crime - and, in the city where we are tonight, on a twice-weekly basis, cold-blooded murder. Marauding gangs are roaming the streets, literally making a laugh of An Garda Síochána, which we all must support.

I salute Community Alert and Neighbourhood Watch and compliment Muintir na Tíre on the work they do at community level in trying to be a source of support and sustenance to the unfortunate victims. I also salute the restorative justice programme in Nenagh and the work it has done there. There are models out there.

It is time the Government of so-called reform, new agenda, NewERA and new transparency levelled with the people and became honest in one respect, and took on and accepted this Bill. If the Minister graces us with his presence, no doubt he will reject it, just as he rejected the Scrap and Precious Metal Dealers Bill 2011, which I introduced. He told us all he would bring in his own Bill and mine was rubbish, but we still have not seen it, and houses, jewellers' and families' belongings are being plundered on a daily basis. What is wrong is that the figures are being manicured, as with everything else the Government does. I can tell the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, that everything is manicured. There is PR and spin. When the Taoiseach went overseas, the spinning top spun a little, they went off-message a little and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, gave a different spin. Spinning will only go so far before one is found out, and the Government is badly found out at this stage.

On the closure of Garda stations, the Minister closed his own one. I heard on a programme on RTE recently that there was robbery after robbery beside the station, opposite the station and everywhere in the street, but the Minister professed that he did this to be fair to everybody else. The criminals know there are no gardaí on the street. The new roster is a disaster. Sometimes there is a third of my county with one garda in the station and one garda in a patrol car. In the name of God, I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, does that amount to justice or protection of the people? Under the human rights Acts, surely the public is entitled to be protected and not to be at the mercy of these fraudsters. There were three incidents in my area only last week. One man was robbed in the middle of the street, a woman going to Mass was stopped by a pretend garda and robbed, and then the criminals visited a day-care centre containing nothing but nice furniture and wrecked the place looking for money. They did not care and they will not be caught. The crime figures are being manicured. No garda under the rank of sergeant is allowed to update PULSE with ordinary crimes. The crimes are not on it at all. The figures are controlled and contrived. We are not getting the figures. We all know it. There are robberies occurring around us every day of the week. In fairness to what gardaí are there, I salute them. They do their best.

Where is the judicial reform we were promised? As for this so-called reforming Minister, I heard even Labour Party Ministers state they would not call for his head because he was the most hard-working and reforming Minister they had ever seen. Where is the judicial reform? Where is it? It is not there. Where was the fairness in the children's rights referendum when we voted €3 million and €1 million of it was misappropriated? There was no debate in the House on that either. Where was the Minister to be challenged when I challenged him in May last about his behaviour towards gardaí? The Labour Party and Fine Gael backed him, but no doubt that file might re-emerge soon. I challenge the Minister on judicial reform. It has come to my notice often that the public are afraid to walk the streets and the criminals are laughing and jeering at them. If criminals have the money, they can go in and give €5,000, €20,000 or more in cash to a barrister in court to defend them for a couple of minutes. I want to get this reforming Minister to have the Revenue Commissioners visit the courts, especially the Four Courts, to see the cash in these brown envelopes handed over, and the poor victims are left there. I heard of an incident this week in which a peace commissioner was called after signing a summons. He had to go to the court and stand up and face the family and be asked by a barrister, who sometimes acts for the State, whether he had seen this man's mother and whether he knew why the gardaí had searched her house, where drugs were found. Is this justice? The criminals are running the country. It is the lunatics running the asylum.

This reforming Minister is going around the world in the Government jet. He thinks he is some latter-day prince. The Taoiseach even told him he could not have it. The Minister is entitled to that. He is above and beyond us all. He might grace us with his presence tomorrow to rubbish this Bill too.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I thank and acknowledge the Technical Group for allowing me some of its speaking time and compliment Deputy Halligan on bringing what is an excellent Bill before the House. It will be a defining moment in this Government if the Minister tries to reject this Bill, because it would be a mean-spirited person who would try to find fault with what is being put before the House tonight and tomorrow night. It is an excellent Bill that the majority of right-minded people the length and breadth of this country would support and endorse because they would appreciate the sentiment and thrust of it. What Deputy Halligan is saying is correct: those who do harm to somebody else, who invade another person's privacy or who damage property or steal property should be made pay for it.

I respect the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, for being here tonight. I have no difficulty whatsoever with Deputy Perry - he is doing his job - but I will say something about the man who should be sitting in his seat tonight, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter. Of course the Minister should do Deputy Halligan and the Technical Group, who are bringing this Bill before the House, the courtesy of sitting there, listening to the debate and taking it all on board and then coming forward with his own suggestions and proposals. Whether he is going to accept or reject it - and we know he is probably going to reject it - the least the man should do is give them the courtesy of listening to the debate. Unfortunately, when one is dealing with somebody who is so arrogant - beyond belief - that he would not even say hello to one outside in the corridor, one is dealing with an unusual individual. I do not mind saying that on the record because all of my colleagues and his own colleagues know it is the truth. If God made us all the same, I suppose it would be a funny world.

Why is crime on the increase? I will tell Members why crime is on the increase. This Minister for Justice and Equality and the Government have misled the people in the fight against crime. The Minister came into the House and said he was closing Garda stations to save money. When I proved on the record that it costs more to keep a Garda station closed than to keep it open, he changed his tune. Then, he said he was closing the Garda stations to provide better policing on the ground. When I asked him a question about whether the hours in Garda stations were being replaced, the Minister replied that they would be deployed in community centres and post offices. He bought mobile vans to put gardaí into. He changed his mind again and did more U-turns and came out with more differing statements on the issue. The man who resigned today backed him up 100%. They were joined at the hip on this issue. The Garda stations could not have closed in Ireland only for the collusion between the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner, who were joined at the hip.

8:25 pm

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is talking about a person outside the House.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about a person who was in a job whereby he closed down our Garda station and I will make no apology to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or anybody else for highlighting that fact. I am sorry.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should focus on what is in the Bill and what could be in the Bill.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am telling the truth and one cannot be caught out for telling the truth. If other people told the truth, it might be a different country. I am saying that these people worked in collusion to close our Garda stations. I have no denying where I came out of, a place called the Bog Road in Kilgarvan. Up that road, we had a Garda station. It was closed and, over the past month, three houses have been broken into on that road. On my oath, it never before happened. Why were they not burgled before? Our local garda used to be up and down the road at odd hours and different times, such as 1 a.m or 1 p.m, doing his duty. The patrol car had to come up from Tralee and gardaí had to sign in to show they were in the locality and doing their rounds. That is all gone. Why is it gone? It is because the Government and this Minister closed the Garda stations. That is why crime is on the increase and it will continue to increase.

This is on the shoulders of the Labour Party and Fine Gael. Councillors from the Labour Party and Fine Gael up and down the country can answer to the people when they are knocking on the doors for local elections. They can say they supported the Government in closing down rural stations that people held so dear for many years.

Photo of John PerryJohn Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to share time with Deputies Connaughton, Stanton and Kyne. On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Shatter, I thank Deputy Halligan for bringing forward the Bill, which seeks to provide for the payment of reparation to victims of offences in respect of medical costs or damage to property at the pre-trial and post-conviction stages.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to enacting legislation to strengthen the rights of victims of crime and their families, to ensure that victims and their needs are at the heart of the justice process and that rights to information, advice and other appropriate assistance are met effectively and efficiently. In this regard, preliminary work is under way in the Department of Justice and Equality on legislation to give effect to the EU victims directive. The purpose of the victims directive is to ensure victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. The provisions of the directive are currently being examined with a view to bringing forward comprehensive legislation to deal with victims' rights.

While the Minister appreciates the Deputy's efforts in bringing forward this Private Members' Bill, which aims to make strong provision for victim reparation, he believes acceptance of the Bill would give rise to a number of significant difficulties. His concerns relate to victims' rights, conflict and overlap with existing law and proposed legislation, the rights of accused persons and the practical difficulties the Bill would create for the criminal justice system, especially An Garda Síochána. In addition, the Minister is planning to bring forward a number of improvements on victim compensation in the forthcoming criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill. I will shortly explain these proposed improvements in more detail. The Minister considers that these improvements are more appropriate and will be of better assistance to victims than the provisions of this Bill.

Accordingly, while the Minister supports the broad intention of the Bill, he believes that more considered provisions are required to achieve a fair and balanced reparation process. The Government will therefore be opposing the Bill on Second Stage.

I now propose to state in detail the main reasons the Government is opposing the Bill. First, as regards victims' rights, the Minister is concerned that the Bill's provisions are limited to compensation for medical expenses and replacement or repair of property. No provision is made for compensation for pain and suffering or loss of earnings caused to the victim of an offence. The Minister is also concerned that the provisions of the Bill do not require the consent of the victim to the payment of compensation by an offender. This matter has been the subject of controversy in a number of recent cases where financial compensation offered by an offender was regarded as a mitigating factor by the court at sentencing, even where the victim had indicated that she did not wish to accept the compensation. Such cases have given rise to a perception that offers of compensation can facilitate offenders to buy their way out of imprisonment for offences without due regard to the victim's interests. The Minister believes that this sidelines the victim rather than placing the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process.

The Minister's second concern relates to conflict and overlap with existing law and proposed legislation. Part 3 of the Bill proposes the introduction of a system of post-conviction reparation. However, the Statute Book already contains provisions allowing the courts to make compensation orders against convicted persons. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 gives the courts a statutory power to order a person convicted of an offence to pay compensation to a person who has suffered personal injury or loss resulting from the offence. Section 6 of the 1993 Act provides that a court may, on application or otherwise, make a compensation order against a person convicted of an offence instead of or in addition to dealing with the offender in any other way, unless it sees reason to the contrary. Section 7 provides for payment of compensation to District Court clerks for transmission and attachment of earnings orders. Section 8 provides for the suspension of a compensation order pending an appeal against a conviction. Section 9 provides for the effect of a compensation order on civil proceedings in respect of the injury or loss that gave rise to the compensation order. It is also open to a person who has suffered personal injury or loss resulting from an offence to pursue a civil claim for damages against the offender.

Having carefully examined the provisions of section 15 of the Bill, which proposes that a court would be required to make a post-conviction reparation order when imposing a sentence upon a person who has been convicted of an offence involving personal injury or damage to property, the Minister believes that the section would give rise to a number of difficulties. The provisions overlap and conflict with section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which is not proposed to be repealed by the Bill. There is no limit on the monetary amount of reparation that can be ordered, even where the offence is a minor one tried by the District Court. No provision is made for compensation for pain and suffering or loss of earnings caused to the victim of an offence. No provision is made for a case where the offender disputes the amount of the reparation calculated by the Garda Síochána. There is no provision for cases where the victim does not wish to accept reparation. No provision is made on children found to have committed offences or for any linkages with the Children Act 2001. There is no requirement for the means of the offender to be taken into account.

The Minister intends to bring forward some improvements on victim compensation in the forthcoming criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill. In early February, the Government approved the drafting of this Bill, which will replace the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 with modern provisions dealing with community sanctions and the role of the Probation Service in the criminal justice system.

The general scheme of the Bill has been submitted to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for pre-legislative consideration. The Minister proposes to introduce a limited and specific restorative justice approach to District Court proceedings for minor offences. It is intended that it will deal with cases such as minor assaults or minor criminal damage where the offender accepts responsibility for the wrongdoing and offers to make reparation, for example, by paying for medical expenses or repairs to a vehicle or property, and the victim is willing to accept the reparation offered by the offender. Victim consent is essential to any restorative justice process. Restorative justice is meaningless or even harmful without it. Where all of those criteria are satisfied, the District Court can take them into account in deciding whether a discharge order or binding over order, which will be similar to an order under section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, would be an appropriate way of dealing with the offender.

As regards section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, the Minister is of the view that it is necessary to break the link between the payment of compensation and the sentencing of the offender in criminal proceedings, especially for more serious offences. From time to time, issues can arise with sentences imposed in cases where financial compensation offered to the victim by the offender is regarded as a mitigating factor by the court when sentencing the offender. This is particularly inappropriate in cases involving serious offences, where the requirement to impose an appropriate penalty for the crime should not be confused with the court's power separately to award compensation to the victim for personal injury or loss. For that reason, the Minister intends that the Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill will amend section 6 of the 1993 Act to disconnect the payment of compensation from the matters that the court may take into account when sentencing the offender. The amendment will provide that a compensation order can only be made in addition to any other sanction and not instead of a sanction.

Moving to the rights of persons accused of committing offences, the Minister is concerned that the provisions of the Bill regarding pre-trial compensation could result in unfair penalisation of accused persons who do not plead guilty. Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill provide that a person accused of an offence involving personal injury or damage to property may, not later than 30 days before the trial commences, give notice to the Garda Síochána of his or her intention to make reparation for the cost of medical treatment required by the victim or the replacement or repair of any property required as a result of the offence.

Section 11 provides for recognition by a court at sentencing to the level of pre-trial reparation paid by the offender. Where the offender did not make full or partial reparation before the trial, the court is to be informed of that fact prior to a sentence being imposed. When deciding the sentence to be imposed, the court must have regard to whether full reparation has been paid by the offender and the promptness of such reparation. The Minister is concerned that section 11 would unfairly penalise accused persons who do not indicate at least 30 days before trial that they intend to plead guilty. The accused person may have not paid reparation before the trial because he or she wanted to put forward a defence such as self defence, or challenge the admissibility of evidence. No provision is made for persons with mental illness whose fitness to be tried may have been at issue and could not therefore indicate an intention to plead guilty. In addition, the provision would treat children found to have committed offences in the same way as adults, without providing for any linkages with the Children Act 2001.

As I mentioned earlier in relation to the existing compensation arrangements under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, the Minister would also be concerned that this provision confuses the requirement to impose an appropriate penalty with the court's power to award compensation for personal injury or loss. The Bill makes no provision for a case where the accused person, or indeed the victim, disputes the amount of the pre-trial reparation calculated by the Garda. Also, no provision is made for cases where an accused person who pays pre-trial reparation decides afterwards to plead not guilty and is acquitted at trial or cases where a conviction is overturned on appeal.

Finally, the provisions of the Bill would give rise to a number of significant practical difficulties in its operation, especially for the Garda Síochána and the Probation Service. Section 7 provides that where pre-trial reparation is to be effected by an accused person under section 5 or 6, the Garda Síochána must ascertain the costs of reparation and serve on the person a pre-trial reparation notice which will inform the person of the amount to be paid, the means of payment and the due date for payment. The Minister is of the view that it would be completely inappropriate for the Garda Síochána to have any role in ascertaining the amount of compensation payable to the victim of an offence, particularly in a case where the accused person has not been convicted of the offence. In any event, the quantification of damages and compensation relating to criminal cases is not a function for which the Garda Síochána has the necessary expertise or staff resources.

Section 13 provides that where a person has been convicted of an offence and has not made full reparation before the trial, the judge will be obliged to ask the Garda Síochána to ascertain the costs of making post-conviction reparation to the victim. Section 14 would require the Garda Síochána to ascertain the cost of post-conviction reparation. As with section 7, the Garda should not have any function in relation to determining compensation payable to the victim of an offence. Providing for involvement of the Garda Síochána in determining compensation for victims of offences would place substantial demands on existing Garda resources and would require significant additional resources for such a role to be effectively carried out. That would have implications for Garda staff numbers and costs. Given the existing constraints and demands on Garda resources at present, the Government could not agree to impose additional functions on the Garda which would have a major impact on its capacity to detect and investigate offences.

Section 18 provides that where a post-conviction reparation order is made, but the offender does not pay the reparation in full by the due date for payment, the Probation Service may ask the court to fix a hearing date for the purpose of making an attachment of earnings order. The Minister believes that it would be inappropriate for the Probation Service to have any role in relation to payments under a post-conviction reparation order. The Probation Service has no role in relation to court-ordered payments, such as fines or compensation under section 6 of the 1993 Act. The making of payments under a reparation order is not something that can or should be supervised by the Probation Service.

I thank the Deputy again for bringing the Bill before the House. While the Minister shares his concern to ensure that the rights and needs of victims of offences are a central consideration in the criminal justice process, he cannot agree that the Bill will achieve that aim, in view of the difficulties and issues raised by the provisions of the Bill. It is with regret, therefore, that the Government will not agree that the Bill be read a second time.

8:35 pm

Photo of Paul ConnaughtonPaul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Bill, which I welcome. I understand where Deputy Halligan is coming from in introducing the Bill. Many of the measures to which he referred should be included in any Bill introduced by the Government to address those concerns.

Deputy Mattie McGrath and Deputy Healy-Rae are in a fantastic situation. No matter what the topic is they seem to use the same speech for everything. In the ten minutes they spoke they never mentioned the words "restorative justice" once. They seem to have an unusual fascination with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter. Perhaps they should seek help in that regard.

Deputy Halligan raised an important point, especially about burglaries because they are an issue of concern. Anyone who goes to joint policing committee, JPC, meetings or deals with the subject will be aware that while crime levels have reduced in certain areas, burglary is a consistent problem. I do not accuse Deputy Halligan of doing so but perhaps other Opposition Members are guilty of stating that when JPC figures go down that the figures must be massaged yet they are the truth when they go up. We must strike a balance in what we say and avoid giving the impression that marauding gangs are going around. The language used is quite unusual.

Restorative justice is a considerable part of what Deputy Halligan is talking about and what the Government must consider. Before I was elected as a Deputy I was a youth worker for four years. I did work with Garda youth diversion projects.

I worked with teenagers who were getting into bother and committing petty crimes and burglaries. To go back to something Deputy Pringle and Deputy Catherine Murphy said, the last thing we should do with those people is throw them into prison because the moment one does one sends them down another road altogether, a road they do not need to go down. They do not come out of prison any better than before they went in.

I brought a group to St. Patrick's Institution - I am thankful the situation there is changing - with the idea of discouraging them from involvement in criminality. It scared me more than it scared them. There must be a greater focus on how we stop crimes happening. We can never put enough funding into youth groups such as Foróige, Youth Work Ireland and Garda youth diversion projects. It is important to get people involved and to provide resources to set up facilities in areas with high crime rates.

There will be always an element of crime such as burglary and the issue is how one deals with this. One of the main theories put forward for crime rates in Galway is that it is due to easy access provided by the motorway. Criminals can come out of the city, drive down the motorway, pick off nearby towns and villages and go back to the city. Garda resources is an issue. I accept the Minister is doing more in that regard. Rural Garda stations have become a major source of concern. I understand those concerns. Galway is no different from the rest of the country and was affected more than most areas. To be honest, some of the stations that were on the list for closing a year ago were already effectively closed as they were open for only short periods. The main issue raised with me by gardaí relates to squad cars, their ability to get around and the quality of the squad cars available. Criminals have very high-powered cars and have the ability to move quickly. We need to resource the Garda properly and get a handle on crime. Recent programmes run by the Garda Síochána have had success in bringing many of these people to justice but a great deal more needs to be done. I can think of one village in County Galway, Kiltullagh, where a certain family has been terrorised in the past number of years. The Leas-Ceann Comhairle will be aware of this. These people certainly need a great deal more help and protection.

I welcome much of what Deputy Halligan said but there is frustration about the provision of legal aid. One of the concerns is that people who continually re-offend are given legal aid. I understand that civil liberty groups will have concerns about this but we need to examine that aspect. One of the points Deputy Halligan made is that we must ensure that crime cannot be seen to pay. A principle of this measure is that people are made pay back for the expense they caused. The Minister of State has laid out why that might not always suit the victim. If somebody is consistently re-offending and legal aid is consistently paid for them, where are the consequences to stop that person re-offending if he or she continues to get an easy run?

That brings me on to the issue of sentencing. We must get a grip on this element because many of the burglaries are being run by well organised gangs who know where they will hit. They stalk certain houses and know when people are in or out. We must send a firm message in whatever legislation is brought forward from this measure, and we should take on board a great deal of what Deputy Halligan has said, namely, that crime will not pay in this case, that we are keeping an eye on these people, that Garda resources will be increased and that we are putting more money into Garda youth diversion projects to discourage crime. Prevention is better than cure. We have not adequately resourced some of these groups. I refer to Foróige and Youth Work Ireland. A great deal more could be done and I welcome much of what Deputy Halligan is trying to bring forward.

8:45 pm

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill. I commend Deputy Halligan on bringing it forward. It is important we debate these issues in the Chamber. I recognise the amount of work that has gone into preparing it and I listened to his speech and agree with a great deal of what he said. Unfortunately, there are technical issues with the Bill, as were mentioned by the Minister of State, which make it impossible for the Government to accept it. However, the general thrust of and thinking in the Bill are correct. The Deputy is aware that the Minister has published the Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill and referred it to the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, which I chair. We have called for submissions on this Bill. The Deputy has until 4 April to make a submission and then we hope to have some hearings on it and to report back to Government shortly after that. We have done that with quite a number of items of legislation. I would welcome if the Deputy would consider making a submission to the committee on these issues. One of the sections of that Bill proposes a limited and specific restorative justice approach in regard to District Court proceedings. The Minister is already taking on board the genesis and thrust of what the Deputy is talking about. The heads of that Bill have been published and we are engaged in the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. This legislation is useful because, with the Deputy's permission, we will take it into account in the work of the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.

The committee has published some work on penal reform which also feeds into the thinking the Deputy has brought forward this evening. We have discovered in some jurisdictions the number of people in prison has been brought down and the level of crime has fallen. There are things that can be done to reduce costs in this area, to reduce the number of people in prison and to reduce the level of crime at the same time. Finland is a case in point. Members of the committee visited Finland and we examined what they have done there. Its prison population has dropped, the level of crime has dropped and the associated costs have dropped. We held hearings on this area and it is amazing to discover what is happening in Ireland. Our probation service is doing tremendous work. I draw the House's attention to the Young Persons Probation family conference. That is a particularly good piece of work. It sets out that:

A family conference is a meeting involving the young person and members of his/her family, the victim and relevant others. It is ordered by the court and run by Young Persons Probation. At the meeting the young person's offence will be discussed with regard to its effect on the victim, the community and on the young person's family.

The conference will explore ways that the young person takes responsibility for his/her behaviour, for the consequences and where possible to put things right by making good the damage.
Much of what the Deputy is talking about is already occurring. IASIO, for instance, is doing amazing work in this area. Another group is the Care After Prison organisation in Aungier Street. It links up with prisoners before they leave prison, prepares them for release and meets them when they leave prison. The last time I visited that organisation they told me they had a 100% success rate of prisoners not re-offending by supporting them on release and guiding them.

The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality recently discussed the concept of a community court. Deputy Mattie McGrath mentioned what is happening in Nenagh. The committee is strongly considering the concept of a community court and we had hearings on it a number of weeks ago. Under this concept a person who commits a low level offence is brought almost immediately before a court if they plead guilty to the offence and they are invariably given a community sanction or community service of some sort. They start that immediately and are monitored for six months and if they stay out of trouble for six months, their record is sealed. That has happened in Manhattan in New York. The first community court was the court in Midtown in Manhattan and it has managed to clean up a great deal of crime in Manhattan, Time Square, Central Park and so forth. There is a great deal of new thinking in this area.

The Deputy's Bill is on the right track. There are technical difficulties with it but we would welcome if the Deputy made a submission to the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality on the Bill that is before us, the Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill which contains a great deal of what the Deputy has in this Bill. We do not need to duplicate the work. The general scheme of that Bill has been published and we are working on it but it is important to debate these issues here tonight.

Photo of Seán KyneSeán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, like others, commend Deputy Halligan on his Bill. It takes a great deal of work, effort and research to publish a Bill such as this. I commend him on the effort he has made. This concept of this Bill is interesting. Many people have different view on the whole area of justice. This measure relates to burglaries and minor criminal offences, not to serious offences. In the case of murder some people have strong views about capital punishment - that people should be locked away in prison and the key thrown away. In the case of less serious crime, there are people who would query the issue of prison versus rehabilitation versus community service and the like. It is an interesting debate and concept and one that can be examined further.

The principle of restorative justice is to hold the offenders to account and to give them an insight into the real impact of their crimes. We hear of victim impact statements in court and the harrowing reports that are made about crime. It is important that offenders realise and accept that.

It would also allow victims to get answers from offenders and receive an apology. Studies have shown restorative justice delivers up to 85% satisfaction to victims who participate in programmes. Older studies show mixed results, but more recent studies show it can reduce recidivism by up to 14%, which is a positive result. It is not designed to replace existing criminal justice proceedings, but it can be an alternative for minor offences and, alongside the criminal justice system, deliver benefits.

The concept is based on who has been hurt, what needs arise and who has the obligation to address these needs. The stakeholders are those who have caused harm and their families, those who have been harmed and their families, and the community at large. Under existing law such as the Criminal Justice Act 1993, there are statutory powers to order a person convicted of an offence to pay compensation. The court may also make a compensation order. Arrangements for compensation payments to the District Court include an attachment of earnings order. It is also open to a person who has suffered personal injury to pursue a civil claim.

It is worth examining the position in other countries, including New Zealand, where much work has been done on this issue. It began with the introduction of family group conferences for young offenders through legislation in 1989. Three Bills have been passed giving greater recognition and legitimacy to restorative justice, encouraging its use where appropriate and allowing and requiring the restorative justice process to be taken into account in sentencing and considering parole. Pre-sentencing conferences in district courts now form part of the most common restorative justice process operating in New Zealand.

I am concerned about a number of issues with regard to the Bill, including the consent of victims. A victim may not want to receive compensation and may be of the view that by paying compensation the perpetrator is buying his or her way to a reduced jail sentence. This is of concern, but there is a precedent for it. There are also issues to do with the Garda. We know gardaí are under a lot of pressure and under the Bill, they would be required to ascertain the cost of reparation. There may be differences of opinion between the offender and the victim. Will there be recourse to appeal? Will the Garda's decision be final? I have concerns about resourcing. Issues are also raised about the age of offenders if children are involved and also with regard to persons with a mental illness.

The Government has plans in this area. As Deputy David Stanton stated, the criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill is with the Oireachtas Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I understand it deals with limited and specific restorative justice measures with regard to District Court proceedings for minor offences, including minor assault and minor criminal damage, where the offender accepts wrongdoing and offers reparation.

The general thrust of the Bill is positive and I welcome it. I welcome Deputy John Halligan's role. I am sure that with his consent some of the ideas could be taken on board and brought into law.

8:55 pm

Photo of Billy KelleherBilly Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Niall Collins sends his apologies for not being able to be here. He would have welcomed the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Debates on crime may not always be based on rational thinking; sometimes they are emotive and try to stoke up fear. I welcome this debate for a number of reasons. For many years we have sometimes used crime as a political weapon to strike fear into people for reasons which are not necessarily correct. At this stage as a society we must address a number of fundamental issues, including the causes of crime, why crimes are more prevalent in some areas than others, the difficulties in the provision of services to ensure crime is minimised in certain areas, and the impact crime has on a further downward spiral of living standards in some areas. This is a key issue for many State agencies with a role to play in this area.

When we speak about justice, very often we examine the issue in very simplistic terms of An Garda Síochána, the courts, jails, criminals and victims. There is a broader issue at stake which we need to address - that some communities are continually crying out for assistance and help in dealing with crime. Very often this involves the insidious creep of low-level crime which over a period of time escalates. One then finds communities under siege and people end up being embarrassed about saying from where they come. We must target resources at the very early stages. When one speaks to professionals such as teachers and social workers, many of them can identify the children who will end up in Mountjoy Prison or on Rathmore Road at an early stage. They are almost destined for a life in and out of the juvenile courts, progressing to being sentenced for pariticipating in criminal activity as young adults. The fact that they can be identified so early leads me to believe there is much we could do to try to ensure as much support as possible is provided. There may be issues of dysfunctionality in the family, including alcoholism, drug addiction and psychological problems. Many issues form a backdrop to the reasons for engaging in crime. I do not want to oversimplify the issue, but we owe it to certain communities where criminality is present continuously. Many people are crying out for help. They are trying to rear their children in these difficult environments, which is unacceptable. I remember travelling some years ago to Leicester and other areas in England to discuss anti-social behaviour orders. Many opinions were given on how they would impact on civil liberties and individual rights and their introduction would amount to a charter to prosecute very young people. The purpose of the anti-social behaviour order I was trying to ensure would be introduced was to reward juveniles by not including them in the criminal justice system at an early stage and steering them along a path towards co-operation with the authorities and away from a path of crime.

Groups of youths gather and, by and large, most of them behave themselves, but there is an intimidatory aspect to some of the congregations in certain areas. One knows there is always peer pressure and that some individuals do not want to be there. There is the slow incremental creep of anti-social behaviour, perhaps with the use of alcohol and drugs and involving low-level criminality. We should be more proactive in trying to discourage youths from taking this pathway. I am not trying to oversimplify the issue, but if large cohorts of youths consistently gather in places where they can be monitored in terms of illegal activity, there should be a way to intervene at an early stage, rather than waiting for them to break the law in a serious way. We speak about the provision of youth facilities and soccer, rugby and GAA pitches, but we need greater interaction with An Garda Síochána through community policing and juvenile liaison officers who do wonderful work.

We need an assistant Commissioner with responsibility for community policing. Involvement in community policing should not be seen as a dead end, somewhere to park a member of An Garda Síochána, but as a central role in policing. The structure of the police force means that one must work and be involved in dealing with serious crimes to have better promotional prospects. A central tenet of any good police force involves the concept of community policing. We should, therefore, have an assistant commissioner with responsibility for community policing in order that it will be seen as almost an essential element by a member of An Garda Síochána in terms of career advancement.

I believe that at times, we do not value appropriately the work of those members of An Garda Síochána who call to a house to discuss a problem with a young person. Such gardaí know their community intimately, they also know the other professionals in that community, be they teachers, social workers or people in leadership positions in sports organisations or elsewhere, whereby there is a whole-of-community approach working to try to ensure that children and young adults do not end up heading to the children's court or another court at the first point of contact. I believe this area to be critical.

On restorative justice, I compliment Deputy Halligan on raising this issue and publishing the Restorative Justice (Reparation of Victims) Bill 2013. I believe it is on foot of substantial work that was done after a report was commissioned in 2007 on the principle of restorative justice and how it would work, as well as the impact it would have on society, on the individual who perpetrated the crime and, more important, on the victim or victims of crime. The key issue in this regard is that justice obviously must be seen to be done. There must be an expeditious approach to this issue. One cannot have victims of crime hanging around for a long time while waiting for the justice system to respond either through the restorative justice system or through the traditional criminal courts. A more expeditious type of justice system is needed and I believe this is a key area that must be addressed. For example, in respect of the subject of bail, Members refer repeatedly to the revolving door syndrome. There is no point in Members pretending otherwise, as week in and week out, the revolving door syndrome means that people who have just been committed to prison are released again. I am not someone who advocates locking people up and throwing away the key. I am far from that position and represent a constituency that has a prison located in the middle of it. I see how people and families are torn apart by the fact that one of their loved ones - a son or a daughter, although it mainly is sons or husbands - has been locked up for a long time. This of course has a devastating impact on a family.

Equally, however, one must be conscious that in the case of a person who commits a serious offence, there at least must be a genuine perception, in the context of both the criminal and the community itself, that an element of protection will be afforded to a community by the fact that a person is prosecuted, sentenced and will serve a certain length of time. However, when a person is imprisoned, supports and training programmes must be in place. Some effort must be made to ensure that a certain level of rehabilitation has taken place for a person who comes out of prison. For example, many people find it extremely difficult in prisons because of pressures that exist within the structures of prisons themselves. I refer to drug addiction, drug abuse, the intimidatory aspects of prison life and what flows therefrom. One must give people who have been sentenced to prison the chance whereby on leaving prison, they at least have been afforded the opportunity to work in a rehabilitative programme that would be of benefit to them and to broader society. Members repeatedly talk about this requirement and there has been a move from Victorian-type thinking in which it simply is a case of punishment to a rehabilitative-type of prison. However, I wonder whether Members genuinely are doing enough in this regard as with the best will in the world, one could argue that Members perhaps cut these things short because prisoners and their families probably do not vote. Perhaps that is the real reason but it is not good enough. It is necessary to have genuine programmes in place in the prisons. First and foremost, in the case of individuals who have major problems and are addicted to drugs, there at least should be adequate facilities to allow them the opportunity to try to kick the habit. Moreover, it is essential that other rehabilitative programmes are in place. However, at present we are only pretending that such programmes are in place. Were such individuals, who were addicted to drugs, to enter Mountjoy Prison today and were they to make up their mind on the spot that they wished to enter a rehabilitative programme, they could be waiting for a while. I genuinely do not believe this is good enough. Were even that sort of commitment and effort to be made, I would welcome it.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I wish to discuss restorative justice itself with particular emphasis on low-level crime. Deputy Stanton has referred to the projects under way in Nenagh and elsewhere but more important, the larger schemes in operation in New York undoubtedly show that if one has community-type courts and community-type service, one deals with low-level crime at the least complex area where there are the most obvious benefits. In other words, low-level crime is dealt with through community courts and through community service. The community takes ownership of the problem because more than likely, the problem arose from one of the community's own people and that community benefits in turn from the service the offender in question provides to it. It is a genuinely simple idea that should be explored because when one considers it in greater detail, it is more complex than just comprising community courts, service and reward. There is a need to ensure that a streamlined service is in place at which all these matters can be dealt with.

Critically, central to all this is the issue of the victim. Some victims may not seek restorative justice. They may want a person to serve the sentence they consider to be appropriate and may not want any contact with the criminal. While that is their right and entitlement, I believe that were one to begin to break down the barriers between them and us, that is, between those who never break the law and those who always are breaking the law, one could try to understand that most of these people are one's own seed and breed. One must ensure there is some semblance of understanding that people are not born to be criminals but that it is due to the system and to isolation. Societal problems and many other reasons explain why a kid ends up in conflict with his or her community and the law and ultimately is incarcerated. I believe much work must be done in this regard. Many of the reasons and causes are known but I do not believe they have been addressed adequately. I refer to young people who clearly are being identified at an early age by professionals as being people who are vulnerable and are at high risk. However, it appears as though the State through its various services only gets in contact with them when they have committed an offence that would merit a criminal prosecution. I consider this to be simply unacceptable.

On the other end of the scale, victims of crime sometimes feel very isolated and vulnerable because they do not believe the system looks after their interests. They do not believe the system looks after their needs and requirements in ensuring the perpetrator of the crime is punished. The word "punished" sounds fine, provided that at some stage there is a rehabilitative process in place. Regardless of whether it is for a low-level crime or a serious crime, if there is a prosecution or the imposition of community service through a community court, there should be a rehabilitative programme in place. There almost should be an obligation on Members to ensure that when people come out of prison, they at least will have had a chance of bettering themselves while incarcerated.

9:05 pm

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the introduction of this Bill to the House and commend Deputy Halligan on his preparation of it. My party and I welcome the spirit of this Bill and will be supporting its progress to Committee Stage. However should the Bill get to that Stage, Sinn Féin will seek to amend it in order to strengthen it further. I will speak further about this a little later in my contribution. Restorative justice is an approach to responding to criminal and other harmful behaviour that enables the perpetrator of a criminal or other harmful act to offer restitution or reparation to the victim or the victim’s community or both. It identifies crime or anti-social behaviour as an act against an individual or community rather than against the State.

Sinn Féin sees an increasingly important role for restorative justice in the justice system across the island because we believe that in a great many cases it is more socially effective than retributive justice as it results in higher victim satisfaction, a lower incidence of repeat offending and a greater chance of offender rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. In the meantime, we are committed to expanding and improving the use of restorative justice, including community restorative justice and community mediation programmes, both within and alongside the existing justice systems North and South.

Although we may agree loosely with the idea that those who commit offences of theft should pay back the costs of the goods they have stolen, the manner in which this Bill suggests that the money should be recouped is not something we could definitively support. Section 19 deals with attachment of earnings orders where an offender has failed to pay the sum of money in full by the set dates. Section 19(c) allows a court to make an attachment of earnings order to a person in receipt of a social welfare payment. This automatically raises questions. As Members know, social welfare payments are often calculated in regard to households. I and my party would worry that where an attachment order is made in respect of an offender, there is a chance that the partner or child of the offender will suffer unfairly due to the behaviour of his or her partner or parent. This is one area we would seek to amend should this Bill reach the next Stage. Of course, we will work constructively with the Deputy on that. There is also the worry that if one cuts far enough into someone’s salary or social welfare payment, one could leave him or her in a situation in which he or she could not survive financially, and this is another area of concern to us.

In order for this Bill to be fair, we would need to work to ensure that strict conditions are placed on attachment orders. We must also be mindful of the danger of placing an attachment order on someone who is already struggling to be an upstanding citizen and the possibility that, rather than being restorative, this could actually have the opposite effect, causing someone to become more detached from society. If both parties agree to such a mechanism then it is fair to call it restorative justice, but attaching an order for payment to someone's salary or social welfare payment who does not want to pay is certainly not what we would know as restorative justice.

In the North of Ireland restorative justice practices have come on in leaps and bounds, but here in the Twenty-six Counties we have much more to do. Although there some good examples across this State, we have much more work to do. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is looking at this very issue. Although restorative justice can be very labour-intensive, it is nowhere near as costly as incarcerating people for non-violent crimes. It is time we started to give real consideration to alternative strategies in this State.

I reiterate my initial point that we support the passage of this Bill to Committee Stage. Should it get there, we will work closely with the Deputy to strengthen it and to take into account some of the concerns I have outlined in my contribution.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.05 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 26 March 2014.