Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “Report on operation of sections 3 and 4

7. (1) The Minister shall, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, cause a report to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas regarding the operation of sections 3and 4, to include, inter alia, their impact on deterrence.

(2) A report under this section shall consider sentencing guidelines more broadly, paying particular attention to the effectiveness or otherwise of mandatory or presumptive sentencing.”.

The Minister is very welcome to the House. It is lovely to see her back in Leinster House. This amendment relates to sections 3 and 4 of the Bill, which seek to increase the maximum custodial sentence available to the courts in respect of the offence of conspiracy to murder. Presently, the maximum custodial penalty that can be applied by the courts is a term of imprisonment of up to ten years.

Like my colleague, Senator Ruane, I understand the rationale around increasing the maximum sentence available to the courts in respect of conspiracy to murder. It seems to make sense that a judge should be in a position to impose an equivalent sentence for conspiracy to murder to murder itself. That is why we do not seek to amend sections 3 or 4.

However, Senator Ruane and I share significant concerns about the imposition of lengthy maximum sentences, mandatory minimum sentences and presumptive sentences on account of research that calls into effect their effectiveness in terms of deterrents and rehabilitation. Our concern in this respect is that additional strain will be placed on the Irish Prison Service, which is already under significant pressures in terms of capacity and the provision of rehabilitation services without there being a commensurate reduction in time. For example, presumptive mandatory sentencing introduced in respect of drug offences and organised crime appears to have failed to reduce the levels of drug-related or organised crime in the State according to reporting by The Irish Timesin 2020. Did the Department undertake any of its own research into the effect of the extension of these penalties before the decision was made to extend the penalty for conspiracy to murder?

The Law Reform Commission advised in its 2013 report on mandatory sentences that it is unclear to what extent, if any, mandatory or presumptive sentences actually deter, while in its 2020 report on suspended sentences, it noted that the deterrence principle has been criticised on the basis that "evidence as to its efficacy as a crime desistance strategy is unconvincing". Professor Tom O'Malley, one of Ireland's foremost authorities on sentencing law, in a recent distinguished lecture at the school of law at the University of Galway, advised that a review of our sentencing guidelines should be undertaken to produce a system that is moderate, proportionate and constructive as well as consistent, and sentences that are logically coherent.

Our amendment calls on the Minister to undertake a review of the impact the proposed changes to the Offences Against the Person Act and Criminal Justice Acts have on deterrents within 12 months of this amending Bill being enacted. Additionally, the amendment specifies that any such report should also consider sentencing guidelines more broadly, paying particular attention to the effectiveness or otherwise of mandatory or presumptive sentencing. I know that our concerns in this respect are understood by the Minister. I look forward to her reply.