Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Previous speakers have said that this is a positive legislative initiative. I would add that it is an essential initiative. It stems from the case of Mr. Ellis, who entered a guilty plea in the Circuit Criminal Court. The trial judge at the time, Judge Ring, suspended one of the counts relating to a five-year sentence. It is worth noting that Mr. Ellis came before the court with 26 previous convictions. That is commonplace in the criminal legal system. The scourge and challenges which recidivism place on us all should get a proper airing on a day like this. We have little or no say in bringing this legislation in, because the highest court in the land found that section 27 of the Firearms Act 1964, as amended, was repugnant to the Constitution. When a provision is repugnant to the Constitution, it is up to the legislators to legislate and respond. On this day, we should note the huge challenge of the scourge of repeat offenders, and the fact and harsh reality that many of the people who are convicted of more serious criminal offences before the court come from a couple of postal addresses in this country. They are not given the same chances in life. They almost follow their family, parents and grandfathers into criminality. At times, it is weirdly like a badge of honour for some. They have been let down by the State. They have never got a second chance. The prison system does not support them adequately when they are in custody, or else they would not reoffend upon release.

The DPP challenged Judge Ring on the grounds of undue leniency in the Circuit Court. One sees here a wonderful playing out of the courts, in a sense, in all their brilliance, and in ways, unpredictability. The High Court judge, Mr. Justice Twomey, upheld the appeal of the DPP, and the three judges in the Court of Appeal did likewise. Ultimately, the case went to the Supreme Court, under Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, which held, by unanimous decision, that the Oireachtas had "impermissibly crossed the divide" in the constitutional separation of powers because it sought to determine the minimal penalty which must be imposed by a court not on all persons convicted of an offence contrary to section 27A of the Firearms Act 1964, as amended, but only on a limited group of such offenders identified by one particular characteristic, namely, that they had previously committed one or more of the listed offences.

As legislators, we should accept that when we are in the legislative business, we are not immune from such challenges. We should accept that as part of the business that we are in, such challenges happen. This is a classic example of the dynamic interplay of the separation of powers in our country, whereby Article 15(2)(1) of the Constitution vests with the Oireachtas the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State, but we are to be cognisant of other countervailing rights, such as those set out under Article 34(1), which states that: "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided in this Constitution", and Article 38(1), which provides that: "No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law." That is where the legislation fell. It was very well intended, but due to the protections afforded us, the highest court in the land has given us clear guidance in its decision that the legislation was repugnant to the Constitution.

It is a great example of how we should not take offence at, or take the hump with, the intervention of the court. We should recognise it as a classic example of the democratic State working in all its splendour. Central to the workings of this democratic State, and the central axis and backbone, is Bunreacht na hÉireann. I have cited the relevant articles. While Bunreacht na hÉireann is a living document which breathes and changes by the decade, particularly in light of the jurisprudence of implied rights, there are certain fundamentals, like the independence of the Judiciary.We are lucky when compared with other EU member states such as Poland. We have a robust, independent Judiciary which is doing its job well. It is vigilant and we should be grateful for its vigilance. We have a Legislature which also takes its job seriously. From time to time, unintended consequences can be produced when the Legislature legislates. That is the safely valve and those are the countervailing rights. It is the beauty of the dynamics of the Constitution of Ireland, which is the central infrastructure of a working, organised State and rule of law.

The Minister made reference to the settled jurisprudence of sentencing law. It is very well settled and it is a fine and complex science. By and large, judges get it right but, from time to time, there is an unmerciful outcry in the media when judges seem to get it badly wrong. However, like everyone else, they are human. I hope there are enough resources for the Judiciary to constantly train its members in the challenging legal science of sentencing law. Of course, the gravity of the offence must be considered but several other factors, some of them mitigating, come into play when passing sentence. When the Circuit Court judge in the case in question was passing sentence, it was adjourned on a number of occasions and she was looking at different reports. The learned trial judge ruled that a suspended sentence was appropriate on one count. After a long and transparent run through the courts, the system has now made an unequivocal and unanimous judgment. It is up to us, as legislators, to run with the ball, to respect the import of the judgment in the Supreme Court and legislate accordingly. That is the process we are a part of today.