Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 30, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1990

50. The Criminal Justice Act 1990 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 2:

“Sentence for treason and murder

2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person convicted of treason or murder shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2) Where a person is convicted of treason or murder and the offence for which that person has been convicted occurred before he or she had reached the age of 18 years, the provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply and he or she shall be liable to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.”.”.

These amendments come together. They are essentially related to a Bill I tabled earlier this year in relation to juvenile offenders. They are important because there in our law at the moment there is a gap in what the Oireachtas intended insofar as we have put in place, through the Children Act and other provisions, specific legislative measures that protect children who are before the courts. They protect people who have been accused of crimes and who are under the age of 18. That is as it should be because they are a different category of offender, notwithstanding what some people who email me about these matters have said. It is important that those measures are in place. Under the Children Act, we have quite a progressive regime in relation to children. While it does not always work, it is good.

Specifically, on amendment No. 24, there are minimum mandatory sentences for offences such as murder. We have the appalling and unreasonable situation in which if, for argument's sake, a 15-, 16- or 17-year-old commits an act which constitutes murder, is accused of that offence and brought before the courts and by the time the case gets to sentencing, as opposed to conviction, and the stage of final pronunciation of the sentence by the judge, that person has reached the age of 18, a mandatory life sentence will kick in. That is totally disproportionate. That is one example. What happens if somebody commits an offence while aged 15 years and is not caught for 20 years? That person would still be subject to a mandatory sentence for something he or she did as a child. These amendments propose to recognise the fact that a child offender is a child offender. Even if he or she subsequently becomes an adult, the offence was still committed by a child and it should be seen that way by the courts. At the moment, the courts' hands are tied in this regard.

Having said all that, I recognise that the Minister has tabled an amendment that essentially does what I have proposed. I am tremendously grateful to her because this is a very progressive change. The Minister's amendments Nos. 27 and 28 essentially do the same thing. Apparently, the Department is unhappy with the manner in which I have drafted my amendments. I will get over myself in that regard. The change is welcome, progressive and important. As I said, I raised this issue earlier this year in a Private Members' Bill. I am delighted it has been taken on board. It is as it should be and a welcome change. I very much welcome the Minister's amendments Nos. 27 and 28. On that basis, I will move my amendment No. 24 and withdraw it and do the same with amendment No. 25.