Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this debate, which is long overdue debate. I welcome the Minister of State and the families in the Visitors Gallery whose children were murdered.

I believe that murder sentencing in this country is not fit for purpose. Change is long overdue. There are many serious categories of indictable crimes such as rape, murder and so on but none are treated in the same manner as murder. Once a person is found guilty of murder the judge has no choice but to impose a life sentence. He or she does not have the discretion to consider issues such as whether the murder was pre-mediated or the circumstances surrounding it and so his or her hands are tied. I commend Senator O'Donnell on what she is trying to do in terms of broadening that out. However, the reality is that after seven years the parole process comes into play. A person given a life sentence for murder could be released as early as 12 years. The average sentence served for murder is 18.5 years. What does this mean? I know that the parole board takes into account many different things but to my mind all it does is commence the charting of a pathway to freedom for somebody who has taken the life of another person. I do not think that is right. As I said, once a judge has handed down a sentence the matter is out of his or her hands and the case is then taken up by the parole board after seven years. A parole board meets in private, considers a case and makes a recommendation to the Minister. We should demand a higher standard from our criminal justice system and ensure that decision-making around the minimum sentence that a person convicted of murder might serve is done in public in a court of law. Anybody can go into a court and listen to a case and the judgment of a judge. We may all have different views on judgments but there is transparency around them. We want and respect this process but that process is not carried through to parole boards.

I have previously raised concerns about the following issue. The Law Reform Commission reported in 2013 that it takes issue with the manner in which life sentences are handed down. In terms of recommendations, it takes the view that the judge should have the discretion to impose a minimum sentence that must be served. As things stand, judges cannot do this and that is not right. If the Law Reform Commission, AdVIC and other stakeholders are suggesting this then we need to pay heed to it.Other stakeholders are also suggesting this and we have to pay heed. I do not understand why nothing has been done about it. I agree with Senator Craughwell. A progressive approach which is seen to be meting out punishment is equivalent to rehabilitation. We can go too far with that. While we would like to rehabilitate criminals, we have to be careful. When a person crosses a line and commits a serious crime, a guillotine should come down. There has to be a severe punishment and an offender must pay a significant price. If he or she takes a life, a sentence of 18.5 years should be imposed. A murder conviction relates to the wilful taking of a life, not an accident or manslaughter. This situation offends our own innate sense of justice.

I received a great deal of feedback on one case prior to Christmas. Everybody has a case and it relates to a loved one. Christmas day was the eighth anniversary of the murders of Sharon Whelan and her daughters, Zara and Nadia. Brian Hennessy, who carried out the murders, was considered for parole after seven years of his sentence, but, worse than that, he was initially given three life sentences to run consecutively before the Court of Criminal Appeal decided they should run concurrently. That is crazy and I do not know how we can stand over that. If someone commits a crime and then does so a second or a third time, unless there are extenuating circumstances, he or she should serve consecutive sentences. I again make the distinction between indictable offences and summary offences, which are minor. I refer to the most serious crimes, which offend us all and which we all want to guard against. We are not just talking about a deterrent or rehabilitation; we are talking about a severe punishment for people who cross that line. The public should be satisfied that there is a sentence to match the severity of the crime that has been committed.

I acknowledge good inroads have been made on tougher sentencing but there must be a closer examination of what constitutes a life sentence. A great deal of good work has been done on law reform, especially in strengthening the law in respect of repeat offenders and those out on bail. It is nonsensical what some offenders have got away with engaging in criminal activity. We should pursue this debate until the law is amended. Judges should set out the terms of a minimum life sentence, bearing all the circumstances in mind. This would give solace to the families of some victims in the knowledge that the perpetrators of these heinous acts would go to prison for a long time. The Government is strengthening the right of victims of crime and their families thorough the implementation of the EU victims directive and providing for a right to access to information and protection for victims, which is important. Crime victims and their families often feel alienated by the criminal justice system. In view of the consequences of being convicted of a crime are serious and justice must be blind and administered that way, it is even more necessary to keep victims abreast of what is going on in order that they can experience a sense of justice and they are not alienated. While victims are witnesses, the greater good is served when offenders are tried for serious crimes. However, victims need to be made more aware of what is happening. I welcome the steps that will be taken in this regard but we have to persevere and do all we can to keep violent offenders off the streets, and make sure they are properly punished and their sentences serve as a deterrent to others.

I would appreciate it if the Minister of State in his reply would, in particular, address why the LRC report has not been acted on to the date. I commend those who have brought this legislation before the House.