Written answers
Thursday, 14 January 2016
Department of Justice and Equality
Sentencing Policy
Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Renua Ireland)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
183. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality the actions taken by her arising from the recommendations made in the Law Reform Commission Report on Mandatory Sentences dated July 2013, in tabular form; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1721/16]
Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The position in relation to the recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission Report on Mandatory Sentences is summarised in a tabular form below. However, I would also like to draw the Deputy's attention to the Report of the Penal Policy Review Group which was tasked with carrying out a strategic review of penal policy. That report, which I published in September 2014, made a number of recommendations about sentencing. Adopting an approach similar to the LRC in its Report, the Review Group recommended that no further mandatory sentences or presumptive minimum sentences be introduced and existing provisions should be reviewed. At the time of publication of the report I pointed out that it was my preference to maintain the minimum mandatory life sentence for murder as was also recommended by the LRC. The recommendations of the Review Group, and the LRC, about sentencing are still under consideration within my Department.
More generally, and as the Deputy will appreciate, judges are independent in the matter of sentencing, as in other matters concerning the exercise of judicial functions, subject only to the Constitution and the law. The approach of the Oireachtas has generally been to specify in law a maximum penalty for an offence, so that a court, having considered all the circumstances of a case, may impose an appropriate penalty up to that maximum. The court is required to impose a sentence which is proportionate not only to the crime but to the individual offender, in that process identifying where on the sentencing range the particular case should lie and then applying any mitigating factors which may be present. An important safeguard rests in the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply to the Court of Appeal to review a sentence she regards as unduly lenient.
The Superior Courts have developed a substantial body of case law setting out general principles of sentencing. Sentencing practice is also being developed by a steering committee of the judiciary which developed the Irish Sentencing Information System website, a pilot initiative designed to gather information about the range of sentences and other penalties that have been imposed for particular types of offences across court jurisdictions. This system is being developed as a valuable tool not only for members of the judiciary but also for lawyers, researchers and those concerned with the needs of victims and their families, and I very much support the initiative led by the Judiciary through the Judicial Research Office in undertaking the detailed work of gathering and providing information on sentencing via the website.
The Deputy may also wish to note that in 2014, the Court of Criminal Appeal issued a number of judgments which addressed the question of sentencing and which acknowledged the many factors that can be considered in individual cases which undermine the usefulness of direct comparisons between one case and another. Nonetheless, every effort to promote consistency should be made and in this respect it is appropriate for the courts to provide guidance on sentencing matters.
REPORT ON MANDATORY SENTENCES (LRC 108-2013)- CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
| 6.01 | The recommendations made by the Commission in this Report are as follows: | |
|---|---|---|
| 6.02 | The Commission supports the recommendations made in 2000, and reiterated in 2011, that a Judicial Council be empowered to develop and publish suitable guidance or guidelines on sentencing, which would reflect the general aims of criminal sanctions and the principles of sentencing discussed in this Report. The Commission also recommends that such guidance or guidelines should have regard to: (i) the sentencing guidance and guidelines available from decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal (including those discussed in this Report); (ii) the aggravating and mitigating factors, and individual offender characteristics, identified in the Commission’s 1996 Report on Sentencing and developed by the courts since 1996; and (iii) information in relevant databases including, in particular, the Irish Sentencing Information System (ISIS). [paragraph 1.128] | A Judicial Council Bill is in the course of preparation which will, inter alia, provide for the establishment of a Judicial Studies Committee. In its present form, the Bill envisages that this Committee would have the function of disseminating information on the sentencing of persons convicted of criminal offences |
| 6.03 | The Commission, by a majority, recommends that the mandatory life sentence for murder be retained. [paragraph 3.76] | No specific action is necessary to give effect to this recommendation |
| 6.04 | The Commission recommends that where an offender is convicted of murder, and is therefore sentenced to life imprisonment, legislation should provide that the judge may recommend a minimum term to be served by the offender. [paragraph 3.84] | This recommendation is currently under consideration in my Department |
| 6.05 | The Commission recommends that the Parole Board be established on an independent statutory basis, and welcomes the Government’s proposal to introduce legislation bringing about this effect. [paragraph 3.86] | Consideration of measures required to place the Parole Board on a statutory footing is underway |
| 6.06 | The Commission recommends that the following be repealed: (i) the presumptive minimum sentencing regime applicable to drugs offences under section 27(3C) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, and (ii) the presumptive minimum sentencing regime applicable to firearms offences under section 15 of the Firearms Act 1925; section 26, section 27, section 27A and section 27B of the Firearms Act 1964; and section 12A of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. The Commission also recommends that the use of presumptive minimum sentencing regimes should not be extended to other offences. [paragraph 4.238] | The recommendations about sentencing are still under consideration within my Department |
| 6.07 | The Commission also recommends that a more structured, guidance-based sentencing system (as envisaged in the recommendations made in Chapter 1) would provide an appropriate alternative to these provisions. In the context of drug-related crime, the Commission also considers that law enforcement efforts may be beneficially supplemented by other initiatives, such as those highlighted in the research conducted by the Health Research Board and the Misuse of Drugs work sector of the British-Irish Council. [paragraph 4.239] | See main body of reply given above |
| 6.08 | The Commission recommends that the following be repealed: (i) the presumptive sentencing regime applicable to serious repeat offences under section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007; (ii) the mandatory minimum sentencing regime applicable to repeat drug offences under section 27(3F) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; and (iii) the mandatory minimum sentencing regime applicable to repeat firearms offences under section 15(8) of the Firearms Act 1925; section 26(8), section 27(8), section 27A(8), and section 27B(8) of the Firearms Act 1964; and section 12A(13) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. The Commission also recommends that the use of presumptive and mandatory minimum sentencing regimes should not be extended to other forms of repeat offending. [paragraph 5.133] | The recommendations about sentencing are still under consideration within my Department |
| 6.09 | The Commission also recommends that a more structured, guidance-based sentencing system (as envisaged in the recommendations made in Chapter 1) would provide an appropriate alternative to these provisions. [paragraph 5.134] | See main body of reply given above |
No comments