Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

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

I thank the Minister of State for his presence. If people are charged with and convicted of murder in Ireland they will serve the ludicrous term called life imprisonment. It is absurd and ludicrous because it is not life imprisonment. It is a minimum seven-year sentence. There is every likelihood that the murderers will get out at somewhere between 13 and 17 years and some will serve even less. Reasons for mitigation are numerous and enumerated. We tend to hear about mitigating factors but never about aggravating. None seems to exist on the other side of the criminal justice system or on the side of the seriousness of the crime, murder, the taking of life. The word "proportionality" is only applied to the offender, it is rarely applied to the victim. My Bill, the Minimum Custodial Periods upon Conviction for Murder Bill 2017, sets out to address this problem and certain other issues pursuant to it.

I stand here today as a Senator but also as a patron of AdVIC, Advocates for the Victims of Homicide. AdVIC has been my greatest teacher. Let us not forget that this Bill is about murder. The Bill is concerned with, and only with, the length of sentences served by those convicted of murder in this jurisdiction. It is concerned with the profound seriousness of the offence. There is nothing more serious than murder. It is my belief that we must start with minimum tariffs for murder. The mandatory life sentence as it stands today must now be abandoned. This is the central premise of the Bill.

The Bill provides for minimum tariffs for murder, similar to the English and Welsh model, to be introduced in Ireland. What does that mean? It means that the Bill provides a mechanism whereby the court can, upon passing sentence for murder, determine the amount of time the offender will spend in prison before he or she may be deemed eligible for release. The Bill cannot imply the abandonment of judicial discretion when sentencing for murder, because there currently is no discretion. There is a mandatory life sentence but that does not mean life under the Irish system of justice. It means a myriad of different levels of sentences. These myriad level of sentencing cause shock, horror and downright disbelief in the general public. What has it caused the families of the victims in the public Gallery? That is the question. That is the question of real justice. It has caused days, weeks and years of abject despair, breakdowns, illness, break-ups and depression because of justice not serving the victims of the savage murders of their loved ones.The examples are numerous and they fill our daily papers. Minimal custodial sentences for murder can, at the very least, go somewhere towards changing that landscape. Minimum custodial sentences for murder, as this Bill proposes, have a specified number of years attached to them. A sentence of life in the Irish criminal justice system does not. A sentence of life does not mean life; it means a minimum term of imprisonment of seven years. That is all it is. After seven years, a murderer's release becomes a possibility. A minimum custodial sentence would now allow for judicial discretion to become available for the first time in cases of murder. This is a most important point. At no place in this Bill is the Judiciary undermined. It is quite the contrary.

Minimum tariffs or sentences are critical if we are to achieve justice for the victims and their families in the Public Gallery and the wider community. Society must evidence a minimum level of disapproval when it comes to murder, regardless of individual case circumstances.

Mr. John O'Keeffe, a director of Advocates for the Victims of Homicide, has argued for this change for years. I am delighted he is present this afternoon together with members of his organisation and others who have been so profoundly affected. I am humbled to have the privilege to be the voice for Annie Mulvaney, whose son Brian's life was taken from him on the streets of Dublin, for Joan Deane, whose son Russell's life was taken from him in a most brutal manner in his own home, and for Gerard Guinee, whose daughter Karen's life was taken in a most savage way in her first week as a newly qualified doctor. These are but three people in the Gallery filled with despair. It is unconscionable that such murder and slaughter would not be met on conviction with minimum custodial sentencing.

Giving life as a sentence means little; it is just a rubber stamp. Once a verdict of murder comes in, a judge's role is merely to rubber-stamp the available punishment. Life does not mean life in Ireland. It falls to a collection of civil servants and political appointees who make up the Parole Board and operate behind closed doors to decide whether murderers will re-enter society. Under the current system, a prisoner with a life sentence must serve seven years before being considered for release by the Parole Board. After seven years, the board reviews the prisoner's file every few years and makes a recommendation to the Minister for Justice and Equality. According to Dr. Diarmuid Griffin, a criminologist who specialises in the area, the average sentence for taking a human life is hovering around 17.5 years while the final decision rests with the Minister for Justice and Equality. Dr. Griffin found in his research that, in the vast majority of cases, the Minister will go with the decision of the Parole Board.

Let me refute some of the arguments against and objections to this Bill that are likely to be articulated. It will be said there is no need for this Bill on the grounds that prisoners are now serving 17.5 years for murder whereas, in the 1970s and 1980s, the average term for a convicted murderer was 7.5 years. It will be said the term has increased but this is a false dawn for a variety of reasons, reasons that this Bill will alter again for a variety of reasons. The trend is currently upward but there is no reason to believe it will not shortly go back downward. The trend is an average. Indeed, a trend is a trend. Many convicted murderers still serve far less than the aforementioned term. It should be stated very clearly that no one serves a true life sentence in Ireland. In reality, the minimum sentence may be reviewed after seven years and the prisoner may be released.

There is no certainty with a life sentence as matters stand. Some will be released after 15 years, some after 20 years, some in fewer than ten years, and some after 30 years. What is the reason one prisoner serves ten years for murder while another serves 30? This indicates zero transparency when it comes to time served for murder.

Let there be no doubt in this Chamber today that there is zero certainty for families. After seven years, they must run the gauntlet of questioning whether the prisoner will be released. The only people to get a true life sentence are the families before us today in the Public Gallery. This is the kernel of the problem. The Bill can change that in an achievable way. The current life sentence lulls the public and even the Judiciary into a false sense of security. On what basis was all this decided? There was no basis. This Bill will alter that. Importantly, even the normally reserved Law Reform Commission published a report on sentencing in 2013 recommending that the courts should at least be able to recommend a minimum term that a murderer should serve. This Bill is merely a natural progression of that report.

Another objection that is well articulated is that this Bill will fetter judicial discretion, which is at the heart of our legal system. It is argued that judges will not have any power and no discretion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Judiciary has no discretion currently when a person is convicted of murder. It must be a life sentence. What this Bill does is grant judicial discretion where it has never before resided. Once this Bill is enacted, an Irish judge may exercise his or her discretion for the first time when it comes to murder. The judge will simply land on a suitable tariff – be it 25, 30, or 40 years – depending on the severity of the crime and then decide whether the sentence should rise or fall, depending on a range of approved criteria.

What about the argument that mandatory sentences do not work? This is rubbish. Possession of drugs with a value greater than €13,000 provides for a minimum sentence of ten years. Firearms offences carry a minimum sentence following conviction on indictment. Ireland is replete with maximum sentences for offences that are rarely ever met. What societies and families of murdered loved ones want is sentencing that reflects their minimum disapproval of the crime of murder, regardless of the nature of the specific murder.

It is argued this Bill is unconstitutional. If in doubt, bring the Constitution out. The Constitution is not a golden wand. Minimum sentences in other contexts have been deemed unconstitutional and there have been plenty of Bills that have passed through this House and the Lower House in respect of which this somewhat tired charge has been made. The constitutionality of this Bill, if enacted, will be tested by the courts in due course, as has always been the case. It is my contention that it does pass constitutional muster. Just because it is brave does not mean it is unconstitutional.

To be forgotten is to die twice. That is how the families of murdered loved ones feel. They have lost a family member violently and savagely and they are then subjected to an indifferent criminal justice system, which, indeed, we could call callous. It is called the criminal justice system because it is for criminals. That is where the justice lies. There is no balance. It is not about the victim. Justice is certainly not evenly distributed. Even distribution is exactly what I am trying to argue for today. It is not vengeance that I seek, and it is not retribution. Not one of the families, including the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, of the murdered in the Gallery this evening has ever spoken to me about punishment or revenge. What they have spoken about is keeping murderers off the streets. It is a question of parity of esteem and cognitive closure reflecting that the lives of their beloved had significance. Surely our greatest significance is our life. It is our most valuable resource. It is our only resource - being alive, being alive, being alive.

Language and communication take second, if not third, place to the fist or the knife. We even witness brawls on Parliament floors on our televisions. It is astounding we are now at a stage when nobody takes violent crime seriously anymore. It is regarded as an acceptable method of communication in film, video, games, some sports and news. We understand the language of violence better than the language of reconciliation and, may I go so far as to say, the language of harmony. It is our very best communicator. Kick out, stab out, hit out, shoot out: we are appalled but only for a minute. This Bill cannot alter or transform that but it can ensure that those who perpetrate the foul and heinous crime of murder and are convicted will receive significant minimum custodial sentences with the exercise of judicial discretion for the first time in this State and that those who are left behind do not have to question why justice was not done or seen to be done. I am leaving this in the hands of the Minister of State and I await his decision on what we should do now.