Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for being here. I welcome the Bill, which represents a step forward towards a fairer and more caring judicial system that is built on the ideals of justice and rehabilitation, rather than simply punishment. I have spoken at length in the past of my strong beliefs that a culture of rehabilitation and education should be put firmly at the heart of our justice system because the way in which we treat our penal system is a reflection of us as a broader society. We should, therefore, work towards creating a system which best supports reintegration into society. I believe the best way of fostering such a system is by respecting the separation of powers which underpins our Constitution. Article 34.1 of the Constitution establishes the courts as the administrators of justice in Ireland, the reason being that while laws can be simple and straightforward when legislated, their application to the complexity of life requires for each case to be considered on its own merits in order for justice to be fairly administered. The principle is made clear in the detail underlining the Ellis v. the Minister for Justice case. The issue at the heart of that case was that having heard the evidence presented before her, the judge sentenced Mr. Ellis to a five-year, fully suspended sentence. Outlining the reasoning for her judgment, she wrote that Mr. Ellis was undertaking credible measures to reform himself and was therefore entitled to a degree of leniency. However, due to the legislation which this Bill rightly seeks to repeal, she was barred from delivering her suspended sentence. It begs the question of how many more judges wish to suspend the second sentences based on the circumstances of the case before them.

The Ellis case serves to illustrate the importance of respecting the separation of powers. When we enter the Chamber and pass legislation, we can never fully imagine the individual circumstances of each case. We should instead trust and support the Judiciary to be understanding and fair in its sentencing, based on the specific facts of each case, rather than binding judges to a pre-legislated set of minimum sentences.

In its recommendation for the Bill before us today, the Supreme Court set out how it reaches a just and fair sentence. It considers the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the personal situation of the accused and any mitigating factors. The Supreme Court also highlighted that, regardless of legislation binding judges to a sentence, prior convictions or the lack thereof will always form part of the consideration when a judge is reaching an appropriate sentence. For that reason, I support today's Bill to remove mandatory minimum sentences for second offences but I believe that this Bill is a genuine opportunity for us to go further and create a more understanding and rehabilitative justice system, first by removing the bar on temporary release under certain Acts. For example, the same Firearms Act 1964 which this Bill seeks to amend still contains a bar on temporary release for those convicted under the Act. In practice, that would mean that if Mr. Ellis was subsequently imprisoned due to a suspended sentence being overturned, the judge would be barred from allowing him temporary release to continue undertaking the credible measures to rehabilitate himself which led to the delivery of the suspended sentence in the first place.Shockingly, this is also the case with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. Should a person who was showing signs of rehabilitation only to relapse temporarily be convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the judge in the case would be barred from allowing the individual to continue his or her rehabilitation through temporary release.

Second, the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Firearms Act still carry presumptive mandatory sentences. While the legislation before us allows us to get rid of the current two-strikes-and-you-are-out system of sentencing, I believe this Bill is an opportunity to challenge the presumptive mandatory sentences that still exist and that continue to bind judges when sentencing, despite the individual mitigating circumstances of each case. Repealing mandatory minimum sentencing with regard to drugs and firearms offences would be in line with recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in its 2013 report on mandatory sentencing. In making the recommendation to remove mandatory sentencing for drugs and firearms offences, the commission noted that the offenders most likely to be the subject of mandatory minimum sentences are usually individuals whose involvement in the drugs trade comes about through circumstance and for whom any statutory minimum sentence is unlikely to act as a deterrent. Particularly in cases involving the misuse of drugs and firearms offences, these minimum sentences often only further dissuade those who have little or no intention of committing a crime in the first place.

If the State is to persist in legislating for minimum sentences, the law could simply become a reactive instrument. If the Government is serious about lowering the number of convictions relating to the misuse of drugs and firearms, the Government should focus less on minimum sentences and more on anti-poverty and community policies. Continuing to be seen to be tough on drugs by raising minimum sentences only serves to further punish and stigmatise communities that desperately needs investment and support.

I welcome the Bill as an opportunity for the Government to create a justice system that is based on rehabilitation rather than punishment. I firmly believe that the Bill represents an opportunity for us to implement the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission and the Irish Penal Reform Trust to remove the bar on temporary release and presumptive minimum sentences for those convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act or in respect of firearms offences.

Under a sentencing Bill, which I successfully amended in the previous Oireachtas, it was accepted that there would be a review on sentencing guidelines carried out within two years. That two years has now lapsed. Is there an update from the Department on this review?