Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 66: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will facilitate the introduction of sentencing guidelines for the Judiciary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12985/07]

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 70: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if in view of the serious public concern regarding the imposition of a three-year suspended jail sentence in a rape case, he has plans for the introduction of sentencing guidelines for persons convicted of such serious crimes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12911/07]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 66 and 70 together.

I cannot comment on individual cases. However, the following are my general remarks on sentencing.

The question of consistency in sentencing and the appropriateness of sentences in particular cases is undoubtedly an issue which raises concerns from time to time. The Courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions. As the Deputies will be aware the traditional approach to sentencing is for the Oireachtas to lay down the maximum penalty appropriate to a particular offence and for the courts having considered all the circumstances of the case, to impose an appropriate penalty up to that maximum. This approach reflects the doctrine of the separation of powers. The Executive lays down the possible punishment range but it is for the Courts to decide the punishment to be applied to the offender taking account of the seriousness of the crime and all the circumstances of the case and of the offender. There is a small number of situations, however, where statute has intervened to create exceptions to this approach. To add to those exceptions I have provided in the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 for mandatory minimum sentences of at least three quarters of the maximum sentence permissible under the law where a person who has been convicted of a "scheduled offence" (a list of specified offences typically associated with organised crime) re-offends within 7 years of release from prison. In order for this provision to apply the conviction for the first offence must have been on indictment and must have attracted a sentence of at least 5 years imprisonment. Where the second offence carries a potential maximum of life imprisonment, a sentence of at least 10 years must be imposed.

During my Second Stage speech on the Criminal Justice Bill, I made my views on sentencing clear to the House. My preference lies in the development of an effective sentencing jurisprudence from the courts themselves and I reiterate my strong view that collectively and individually the independence of the judiciary is an important value which is enhanced rather than damaged by collective measures taken by the judiciary to ensure consistency, rationality and coherence in sentencing.

As regards consistency in sentencing, the Deputy should be aware that section 36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 makes provision for meetings of District Court Judges to discuss, inter alia, the avoidance of undue divergence in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court and the general level of fines and penalties. While there is no similar statutory provision in the case of other Courts, it is understood they hold similar meetings.

For my part, the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995 enables me, as Minister, to provide funds for judicial training courses arranged by the judiciary. In this regard, funds are made available to the Judicial Studies Institute, which was established by the Chief Justice for the purposes of judicial training. I understand that the issue of sentencing has been examined by the Institute in the context of its training programme.

The complex question of sentencing policy was addressed at length by the Law Reform Commission in 1996 in a Report which specifically recommended against the introduction of statutory sentencing guidelines. Their Report pointed out a number of differences of opinion among members of the Commission in relation to some of the recommendations in the Report which tends to underline the obvious complexities which arise in relation to sentencing policy.

I should also mention that under the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, the Director of Public Prosecutions may, where it appears to him that a sentence imposed on indictment is unduly lenient, apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal to review the sentence. The issue of extending the power to the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against lenient sentences in serious cases before the District Court was referred by the Attorney General to the Law Reform Commission for consideration. The Law Reform Commission report of November 2006 recommends that it is not appropriate to confer such a power at this time but noted that this is a matter which should be kept under review.

A very significant step in the area of sentencing was the decision by the Board of the Courts Service to establish a Steering Committee to plan for and provide a sentencing information system. The Committee, which is composed of four members of the Judiciary and an academic expert, reviewed systems of this nature around the world and decided to establish a pilot project in the Circuit Court in Dublin. I understand that two researchers have begun to collect and collate information on sentencing outcomes in cases on indictment in designated courts in accordance with criteria specified by the Committee.

The objectives of the project are to:

identify criteria and other information employed by the judiciary in sentencing for particular offence types in criminal proceedings,

record and retrieve such information in individual cases,

design and develop a database to store the information retrieved and enable its retrieval in accordance with various search criteria,

share or disseminate the information, utilising information and communications technology, via a judges' intranet or other means, and

assemble appropriate material on sentencing for a benchbook and website.

The work of the committee is still under way and I look forward to seeing the outcome of the research. It is right that we have a systemic form of information as a reference point for Judges.