Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator O’Donnell for bringing this legislation before the house, and her passion in making this case on behalf of people who have lost a friend or loved one. I welcome and commend the families and their representatives for coming forward and making the case that our judicial system, as it stands, is not adequately dealing with sentencing for murder.

At the moment, a murder conviction in Ireland carries a mandatory life sentence. Many convictions, however, result in early release with the average custodial sentence coming to 17.5 years. It is important to remember that after release, that person can be recalled to prison at any time if they violate certain conditions. The life sentence does carry for the rest of the person’s life. The issue is what proportion of that time should be spent in prison.

As it stands, this timeframe is determined based on a number of factors relating to the specific circumstances of the case. In presenting this Bill Senator O’Donnell has made an important point that the uncertainty over these factors and the corresponding length of the sentence can put a huge degree of stress on families. We should always keep that in mind. This issue was raised by the Law Reform Commission review in 2013, when it recommended that a court should have the capacity to recommend a minimum term to be served. This is an important legal context to the Bill, and we should take this recommendation seriously.

There are aspects of the Bill that raise serious concern. The minimum sentence would be set at either 25, 30 or 40 years, which seems quite severe. It has been suggested that this would be one of the most punitive measures in Europe. The UK has set the limits at 15, 25 and 30 years, for example. I would like to see further debate as to why the lower limit of 25 years was chosen. As was mentioned during the debate in February, the 2013 Law Reform Commission review suggested that a judge could recommend a minimum sentence, which would then be taken into account by the Parole Board.

In general, as a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice and Equality, my outlook on criminal justice matters is to emphasise rehabilitation. That is in no way to diminish the heartbreak suffered by victims in particular cases, but to ensure that we take a balanced approach that considers the wider impact on Irish society and considers the specific features of the case at hand. With careful consideration we can reconcile the principle of rehabilitative justice with the rights of victims of serious crime. The Irish Penal Reform Trust has been helpful in providing this perspective and has said that it is resolutely against mandatory sentencing, that it is a blunt instrument that always results in unequal justice and that there is scant evidence, national or international, that mandatory sentencing is effective in reducing crime. This evidence base concerns me, and I think we would need to see further debate on that specific point. Similarly, I am concerned that mandatory sentencing could see an increase in the prison population, as has happened in the US, or more guilty pleas to avoid minimum custodial periods.

I welcome the aspect of the Bill which seeks to bring clarity on the operation of parole boards. Currently, the question of release is removed from the judge’s hands and is handed over to a Parole Board after seven years of the sentence. Concerns have been raised about the transparency of these decisions and the stress this has caused grieving families. I would like to see discussion on how we can bring greater transparency to this process. For example, it was raised in February that non-statutory sentencing guidelines could be outlined for the Parole Board to take into consideration.

While I have concerns over the severity of the Bill, it raises several important questions about our judicial system and highlights areas for consideration and reform, such as the decision to begin parole hearings after seven years and the transparency around any decisions made. These areas could be considered in greater detail on Committee Stage, where amendments can be tabled and the finer points can be outlined and altered.

I commend Senator Colm Burke's point that while he was opposed to the Bill when first presented, having listened to the debate and the proposals made, he did not want to close the door on it immediately. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, made the same point that consideration of the Bill on Committee Stage could see it improved or provide an impetus for Government policy.I agree with him on this and support the Bill going forward to Committee Stage for detailed analysis and scrutiny.