Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus roimh an mBille. Tá an-bhród orm a rá ar son Fhine Gael go bhfuilimid i bhfabhar an Bhille seo. Is ceart agus cóir dúinn mar Oireachtas a bheith ag éisteacht i gcónaí leis an Ard-Chúirt, ach go háirithe, agus leis na cúirteanna go léir agus a bheith ag féachaint ar an méid atá déanta acu, go háirithe ó thaobh na hAchtanna ó na Tithe seo agus conas mar a chloínn siad leis an mBunreacht.

It is very important that we take on board the decision of the Supreme Court in the Ellis case. I will not rehearse what has been said about that case, but the Supreme Court has identified a very clear issue there. Sometimes in these Houses we like to talk about imposing particular sentencing regimes and saying that certain mandatory sentences must be in place, which we should be slow to do. It is very important that we trust the Judiciary, which is made up of individuals who are beyond reproach, incredibly experienced and well trained in their own professions when they come to the Bench. On the whole the Judiciary in this country is very functional, which is not something that cannot be said of every European state even. Obviously, we are particularly aware of the difficulties that exist in Poland, for example.Here, we have a Judiciary that acts well, in accordance with law and with fairness to all sides. It is therefore appropriate that in the legislation that we put forward in this House, we should give the Judiciary the discretion to deal with cases as it sees fit. Notwithstanding the importance of certain mandatory sentencing regimes, as Houses, we should generally be slow to impose mandatory regimes. Therefore, it is appropriate that this Bill undoes some of the mandatory elements that we had put in place in legislation.

I cannot help but remark on the fact that this Bill very closely mirrors a Bill I put forward earlier this year, the Criminal Procedure and Related Matters Bill 2021, which was a reaction to the Ellis case and sought to undo some of the elements that were in place, particularly in relation to the modern legislation like the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, the Criminal Justice Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. I will not pretend that I did as good a job as this Bill does. Certainly, this Bill has uncovered legislation that I did not even know was in force, such as the Dublin Police Magistrates Act 1808, which I suspect nobody outside this room has either heard of in the last 50 years, or had any reason to deal with. I looked up section 49 of the Act, which reads, very succinctly:

And ... that any person in whose dwelling-house, out-house, shop, warehouse, cellar, yard, or other place within the said police district any such stolen goods or chattels or any receiver of stolen goods shall be knowingly and wilfully harboured or concealed shall, upon being convicted by due course of law of so knowingly and wilfully harbouring or concealing such goods and chattels or any such receiver of stolen goods, for the first offence forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, and for every subsequent offence the sum of two hundred pounds, or, if he or she shall be unable to pay the same, shall be committed to prison, without bail or mainprize, for any time not less than three or more than six calendar months for the first offence, nor less than six nor more than twelve calendar months for every subsequent offence; such forfeiture to be recovered by civil bill in the court of the recorder of the city of Dublin.

Of course, the court of the recorder of the city of Dublin no longer exists. Therefore, the notion that we are repealing this legislation is entirely appropriate. I was going to say that it is timely, but it is long past time. In that context, it is worth acknowledging the ongoing statue law revision project within the Office of the Attorney General. It is important that we particularly look at pre-1922 statutes, many of which are still on the Statute Book. The Dublin Police Magistrates Act 1808 and the Illicit Distillation Ireland Act 1831 are still in force today, and until this Act passes, which, on one level, is absolutely ridiculous. I encourage the Office of the Attorney General to continue at pace its work repealing that legislation that is no more in effect. I recall that when I worked in these Houses as a member of staff many years ago, there were two or three Bills that went through at that stage that dealt with the most archaic legislation from the 16th century and 17th century relating to brick burnings and requirements for taxis to carry a bale of hay at all times, and that kind of nonsense. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we proceed to undo that legislation and consign it to history, where it belongs.

I do not propose to speak to a large extent on this Bill because, as the Minister of State said, it is largely a technical one, but it does good things from the point of view of bringing the law in accordance with the Constitution, and addressing the issues that have been identified by the courts and some other issues in terms of the Bill. In the context of making further amendments, I might suggest some amendments on Committee Stage arising from my own Private Members' Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will have regard to them.

On the whole, what has been done here is a very positive piece of streamlining of our law so that we both bring it into accordance with the Constitution, and equally, and perhaps almost as important, reflect the decision of the Supreme Court in the Ellis case - and I may be paraphrasing and putting words in the judges' mouths in this regard - to give greater power and discretion to the very effective Judiciary that we have to make decisions in the way that it sees fit in relation to any person who is being sentenced before the court.