James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chair and welcome the opportunity to introduce the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024. This Bill introduces a number of very important reforms in the law across a broad range of areas. These amendments reach across many aspects of people's lives and have the potential to make a real difference. They include increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, increasing carrier liability fines as part of our ongoing reforms to strengthen the immigration system, amendments to the Judicial Council Act 2019 to address issues relating to personal injury guidelines highlighted by the Supreme Court in the recent Delaney case, and provisions to increase the maximum penalties for a number of knife crime offences. Finally, the Bill amends a number of Acts on the Statute Book relating to superannuation provisions for public servants with the aim of increasing the mandatory retirement age for uniformed public servants.

I also wish to note that I hope to bring potential amendments to this Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil relating to the status of officials of the Judicial Council and Judicial Appointments Commission; amendments to the Broadcasting Act 2009 relating to the powers of Coimisiún na Meán and the Terrorist Content Online Regulation, EU 2021/784; amendments to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 to correct procedural issues identified in the Damache judgment and thereby re-enabling the revocation of certificates of naturalisation in serious cases; amendments to the International Protection Act 2015 to address procedural issues with the process for designating safe third countries and inadmissibility procedures identified in a recent High Court judgment. This House will have the opportunity to examine these amendments in due course.

The Bill comprises 12 sections laid across seven Parts. I will now highlight the main provisions of each Part. Part 2 amends section 1A of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961. Section 2 provides for the amendment of section 1A(2) of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 for the purpose of increasing the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal by one, to 18. The increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal is to maintain the number of judges available to sit on the court while Ms Justice Power acts as sole member of a tribunal of inquiry examining matters relating to the Defence Forces.

Part 3 amends the Immigration Act 2003. Section 3 amends both sections 2 and 3 of the Immigration Act 2003. The amendment to section 2 of the Act has the effect of increasing the fine payable where an airline or ferry company is found guilty, on summary conviction, of allowing a person to board a vehicle destined for the State without the proper documentation. One example of where a prosecution might be sought in this regard is where an airline allows someone who requires a visa for Ireland to board a flight to Ireland without the required visa. This Bill amends the maximum fine so as to increase it from €3,000 to a class A fine maximum of €5,000. This more closely aligns the fines payable in Ireland for an offence with fines in other European countries.

Section 3 of the 2003 Act provides that a person accused of committing such an offence may make a payment within 28 days so as to avoid prosecution for that offence. The amount payable under section 3 to avoid prosecution currently stands at €1,500. The Bill will increase that amount to €2,500. The Bill maintains the current ratio of the amount payable being equivalent to half the maximum penalty on summary conviction. There was a period of stakeholder engagement in advance of this proposed change being introduced to this Bill, and my officials will communicate this increase in fines in good time with stakeholders before commencing the revision of this Bill.

Part 4 amends the Judicial Council Act 2019. Section 4 in Part 4 introduces a number of changes to the Judicial Council Act 2019. The changes being introduced were necessitated by the findings of the Supreme Court in the Delaney case. In that case, the personal injury guidelines which came into force in April 2021 were challenged. As Senators will be aware, the Supreme Court upheld the guidelines. This was really good news as we believe the personal injury guidelines are key to keeping the cost of insurance down. The Supreme Court also identified a particular deficiency in the underpinning legislation, the Judicial Council Act 2019. Part 4 of this Bill rectifies the matter. The changes being made in the Bill reflect advice which I obtained from the Attorney General.

Section 4 introduces new procedures in respect to future amendments to the guidelines. Any future amendments to the guidelines will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may only be adopted by the Judicial Council after a positive resolution has been passed by both Houses.The additional level of scrutiny attached to the new procedures for amendment to the guidelines reflects the important role of the guidelines in seeking to standardise possible awards in personal injury actions.

Section 4 also introduces a provision which puts beyond doubt the legal efficacy of the existing guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council and which subsequently came into force in April 2021. The provision clarifies that the guidelines remain legally robust until amended in accordance with the new procedures introduced in the Bill. The changes made by this Bill should ensure that the guidelines achieve their objective, which is to ensure the delivery of fair and consistent personal injury awards.

Part 5 refers to the amendment of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act in 2019. Section 5 amends the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 to increase the maximum sentences for the more serious knife-related offences under the Act. A number of extremely serious and, in some cases, fatal knife attacks in recent years have caused a valid increase in public concern about the criminal possession and use of knives. Official figures also show that over the same period, there have been gradual but significant increases in knife seizures, prosecutions for knife crime offences and the treatment of knife attack injuries in our hospitals. In response, the multi-stakeholder antisocial behaviour forum, which I chaired, established an expert subgroup on knife crime. This subgroup, comprising various criminal justice bodies and civil society groups, recommended raising several of the maximum penalties under the Act. I thank the subgroup for its valuable consideration of this issue. I fully agree with its recommendations and these amendments will give effect to them.

Under the 1990 Act, the maximum sanction for simple possession of a knife in a public place is five years imprisonment. The subgroup did not recommend increasing this penalty and neither do I believe it needs to be increased. However, five years is also the maximum penalty for several more serious knife crime offences under the Act, namely, possession with intent to cause injury or intimidate, trespassing with a knife and producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury. This is an anomaly in the law. Unlike simple possession, these offences involve a clear and significant degree of criminal intent. They represent a significant threat to community safety in their own right because they can be precursors to serious and sometimes fatal assaults. As recommended by the subgroup, I am, therefore, proposing that the maximum penalty for these more serious offences be increased to seven years. I also propose to increase from seven years to ten years the maximum penalty for manufacturing, importing, selling or hiring offensive weapons, which is an even more grave offence.

I believe these amendments represent a necessary rebalancing and strengthening of the penalties for knife crime under the 1990 Act. They reflect the true gravity of the offences in question and will ensure that, in the most serious cases, the courts can impose a sanction that fully matches the crime. I am, of course, aware that Deputy O'Callaghan previously introduced a Private Members' Bill relating to this issue which recently underwent scrutiny by the justice committee. I am grateful to both the Deputy and the committee for their work in this regard. It is clear we share a common goal in responding to this serious issue.

Part 6 deals with miscellaneous amendments and, in particular, the amendment of section 23 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Section 6 of the Bill corrects a typographical error identified in section 23(5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended by section 16(a) of the European Arrest Warrant (Amendment) Act 2024. The words “of a person" in section 23(5)(b) are extraneous and unnecessary. While the typographical error is minor in nature and does not materially affect the operation of the Act, this amendment is prudent and necessary to ensure that the wording of the implementing measure correctly aligns with the EAW framework decision.

Section 7 deals with the amendment of section 38 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Recognition of Custodial Sentences) Act 2023. There is a typographical error in section 38(1)(h), where it states “not less than.” rather than “less than 6 months”. Accordingly, there is currently no power for our courts to refuse to recognise a sentence on the basis that the period of imprisonment of the overall sentence or the period of the sentence remaining to be served is less than six months. While there is a requirement on the High Court to interpret the 2023 Act, in so far as possible, in light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision, this amendment will correct this typographical error to ensure there is no ambiguity and that the 2023 Act properly implements the discretionary ground of refusal set out at Article 9(1)(h) of the framework decision.

Part 7 deals with superannuation. It makes the necessary amendments to facilitate an increased mandatory retirement age for members of An Garda Síochana and the Permanent Defence Force, as well as prison officers and firefighters. These provisions enhance the options available to members and allow them to remain in service for longer if they choose to do so. Following analysis undertaken by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to examine the issue of mandatory retirement age increases and fast accrual pension terms in these sectors, a policy framework was established.Under this framework, fast accrual pensions terms will be facilitated until age 60. If an individual remains in employment beyond that age, their pension accrual reverts to the standard basis from that point until their retirement.