Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I am delighted to welcome the Bill because there is certainly a need for more judges. I noted with interest the Minister of State's comments on issues such as judicial training and sentencing and I will deal with these later.

With the substantial increase in crime in recent years and even with falling detection rates, record numbers of cases are going to court and the waiting lists of cases to be heard are lengthening. Government policy is to introduce more legislation and more offences into the criminal justice system without assessing whether it is equipped to tackle the current set of offences, never mind the new offences being introduced. There is a backlog in the criminal justice system due to a lack of judges who can process offences. When coupled with the lack of a central register, a lack of sufficient training and a lack of clear guidelines, it is no wonder our criminal justice system is perpetually struggling to process criminal offences and to deal effectively and consistently with criminal offenders.

The courts must be equipped to deal swiftly, efficiently and consistently with the cases which come before them. What are the solutions? One solution is to reduce crime significantly but that is unlikely to happen some time soon, especially as crime has increased yearly since this Government came into office. The second way to solve the problem is to improve the efficacy of the courts system, which involves appointing new judges. This has been a central tenet of Fine Gael policy for a long time. We have been calling for an increase in the number of judges, particularly in the Circuit and Criminal Courts, for a long time.

If we want to change the effectiveness of the Courts Service, there must be an increase in the support staff in each of the courts affected by this Bill. I learned that the Minister has sanctioned 18 extra support staff but that is inadequate. It is essential new judges are not frustrated by administrative delays and back office pile-ups.

When talking about resources, I will be a little parochial. Waterford desperately needs improved court resources so locals can have the level of service appropriate to a modern, regional capital and a gateway city. Unlike in Limerick, Cork and Galway, no Circuit Court judge is based in Waterford which merits one given the number and frequency of sittings there. The accommodation in the city's court house in Catherine Street is inadequate with only two courtrooms available for the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court when it is on the circuit.

The situation becomes especially congested when the High Court sits for two weeks in March and July to facilitate litigants who would otherwise have to travel to Dublin. The two judges sit simultaneously in Waterford but because there are only two available courtrooms, the lower courts cannot sit during the four weeks the High Court sits. There is a chronic lack of courtroom space in Waterford and this seriously inconveniences the public which is entitled to proper court facilities. It is not possible to access the Waterford small claims court via the Internet as can be done elsewhere. Again, this is unacceptable.

The lack of courtroom accommodation in Waterford means cases are delayed to an unacceptable extent. When District Court convictions are appealed to the Circuit Court, the lack of accommodation once more delays the implementation of justice. What proposals does the Minister have, if any, to appoint a small claims court registrar to Waterford with a fully staffed, full-time office? How many days per week will the Waterford District Court sit as a result of the reorganisation of the judges in the district? Is it envisaged that different types of litigation will be heard on different days of the week? What urgent proposals does the Minister have to deal with the chronic shortage of courtrooms in Waterford? There is no doubt Waterford people are discriminated against in the facilities provided by the State in terms of the administration of justice and it is unacceptable.

I return to the issue of judicial training. It is imperative judges keep abreast not only of developments in law but of trends in practice and social norms. Judicial independence requires a well-trained and well-prepared Judiciary. We cannot expect judges to be consistent and effective in sentencing if they receive no training or education in the matter. Few professionals operate in practice without ongoing professional development. For example, in theory, members of the Bar are expected to submit themselves to a specific number of hours of education periodically. Judges receive no formal training at any stage in their careers and rely solely on their careers as practitioners, either as barristers or solicitors, to equip themselves for what is a vital public service. At the very least, to implement international best practice, judges should be obliged to undergo a specific amount of training per year. While the Judicial Studies Institute runs many worthwhile and valuable seminars, the format of this training is far from focused and it has an ad hoc nature which means it fails to address the important issues of everyday concern for members of the Judiciary.

Judicial training could include a variety of subjects designed not only to improve the knowledge of judges but to change attitudes. In many countries, judicial education emphasises attitudinal change to improve judicial integrity or to eliminate hidden bias on gender or ethical issues. Regardless of the course type, managing this type of training is critical. The overall control and direction of judicial training could be in the Judiciary's hands. The training could be also provided by separate entities such as law schools or by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is no question of the need for judicial training. The matter concerns not only the Judiciary itself but also the general public.

The current practice of remitting 25% of a sentence is problematic in several respects. It diminishes the impact and status of a sentence. If a person is sentenced to four years imprisonment today, he or she will be given a release date of three years from now because 25% of the sentence will be remitted unless he or she behaves badly while in prison.

It is the decision of the prison governor to reduce the sentence despite the fact that prison governors do not have any legal basis to carry out judicial functions under any law be it constitutional, statutory or common. This role of the prison governor is potentially vulnerable to legal challenge, given that the setting of legal sentences is a judicial function to be exercised uniquely by the courts.

A sentence handed down for four years should mean just that. If a parole board decides factors exists which should lead to a 25% remission of sentence, so be it. However, the idea of automatically remitting sentences makes no sense. Fine Gael believes a sentence should be reduced only where specific reasons for doing so exist. Such reasons should be adjudicated upon by a parole board. Reasons for reducing a sentence could include compassionate grounds, good behaviour or evidence the criminal has responded well to rehabilitation.

An argument can be made that automatic remission gives prison officials a carrot and stick to encourage good behaviour among prisoners. In fact, the reverse is the case. Automatic remission gives the carrot directly to the prisoner and threatens to take it away at a later date. The criminal justice system should make it clear to prisoners that certain types of behaviour simply will not be tolerated and being guilty of good, bad or indifferent disruptive or criminal behaviour while in prison will lead to sentences being made longer rather than imposing a sentence the person should serve in the first place.

Victims' rights should be also taken into account when prisoners are released. This issue was raised on the Order of Business this morning. Victims should be notified when serious offenders are released. I do not want to comment on any specific case. However, it is of concern to the general public and it has been lacking. We often speak about the rights of victims. However, when it comes to putting them into practice we are very slow to implement those decisions.

When a guilty verdict is delivered, a judge will hold a sentencing hearing during which the Director of Public Prosecutions will be asked to make a submission. At present, DPP guidelines prevent prosecution barristers from making submissions. Hence, sentencing submissions from the defence are presented in a vacuum and factors of which the judge should be make aware may not be brought to his or her attention.

Fine Gael believes it is appropriate for the defence to put forward a plea in mitigation at sentencing stage. It is wholly appropriate also for a plea in prosecution to be put forward. Such a submission from the DPP is not necessarily with a view to achieving harsher sentences. Rather, it is to assist the judge in his or her functions. The DPP can bring to the judge's attention that a particular defendant has a number of previous convictions for similar offences, that a person failed to co-operate with the Garda Síochána or any other information felt to be relevant given the facts of a particular case.

However, the prosecution never seeks a particular sentence or highlights to a judge the importance of a severe or lenient sentence in certain cases. The very idea that justice demands both sides to be heard should be viewed not only from the perspective of protecting the defendant's right to a fair trial. It seems ridiculous the defence should be allowed to present unchallenged mitigating factors in court.

As I stated at the beginning of my speech, I welcome the Bill and support the idea of increasing the number of criminal law judges. However, we must put in place the resources in the Courts Service and in areas such as sentencing and judge training.