Written answers

Tuesday, 7 November 2006

Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Weapons Amnesty

8:00 pm

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 90: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the low yield of the recent weapons amnesty which resulted in 368 weapons being handed over to An Garda Síochána when compared with a similar amnesty system in the UK in 2003 which resulted in 43,000 weapons and one million rounds of ammunition being handed over to police; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36339/06]

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been informed by An Garda Síochána that due to a delay in some Garda Stations making their returns to Garda Headquarters, a conclusive figure of weapons surrendered under the recent Amnesty will not be available until later this week. However, to date 627 weapons, and not 368 as referred by the Deputy which were surrendered under the Amnesty, have been returned to Garda Headquarters.

One cannot draw a valid comparison between the recent Amnesty here and the Amnesty in the UK in 2003. Under the UK Amnesty persons were allowed to hand in illegally held guns and just walk away. No questions were asked and neither were those surrendering weapons required to present any form of identification or asked for their names. They were informed, in public notices announcing the amnesty, that there would be no arrests or prosecutions arising out of the surrender of any weapon.

The basis of our Amnesty, and one which all parties agreed with in the course of the passage of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 through the Oireachtas, was that persons would be required to give their name and address when surrendering weapons, that the weapons surrendered would be forensically tested and where a surrendered weapon was found to have been used in the commission of a crime both the weapon and forensic evidence could be used in evidence in any subsequent proceedings. To provide otherwise would, in my view, allow the possibility that criminals would avail of the Amnesty to "dump" weapons used in the commission of crime thus making it more difficult to secure prosecutions in any further cases.

I want to emphasise once again that I never held the view that large numbers of hardened criminals were going to hand over their weapons. Such criminals can only be dealt with by applying the full rigour of the law; they are and will continue to be pursued relentlessly and brought to justice. However, I did believe that there were people who had guns and offensive weapons and who would have found it difficult to come forward or to admit that they had weapons in their house or that they had neglected to license them. The Amnesty afforded such people an opportunity to surrender such weapons safely and I am glad to see that so many availed of the opportunity before the introduction of the new minimum mandatory sentence provided for under the 2006 Act.

The opportunity afforded by the Amnesty will make the new mandatory sentences fair as well as effective. These sentences, which came into effect on 1st November, 2006 provide mandatory minimum sentences of between 5 and 10 years for a range of serious firearms offences.

The court may exercise discretion and impose less than the minimum sentence prescribed where it is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances for doing so. However, it may only exercise its discretion in the case of a first offence. Where a person charged with any of the above offences has been previously convicted of any such offence then the court has no discretion and must impose at least the mandatory minimum sentence.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.