I should like to thank the many Deputies who contributed to this debate. It appears that all sides of the House agree that there is a problem and that something should be done to deal with it.
I very much appreciate the compliments from all sides of the House on the initiative I took in proposing this Bill on behalf of Fine Gael. While I very much appreciate those compliments I would be even more appreciative if there were now all-party agreement to the principle I propose. Very simply, what do I propose? I am saying that there is a compelling case for giving the State the power to seek a review of a sentence where it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions that the sentence of a person in a proceeding in a criminal court has been unduly lenient. It is very clear that such a procedure is a feature of the criminal justice system in other countries. Of course, that is not to say we should automatically import it, but at least it is a precedent as to how the criminal justice system has been advanced and progressed in other countries. These are precedents we should not ignore.
I believe there is very strong public support for the Bill I propose. I had evidence of that in a survey conducted in the Clontarf (Dublin) Garda district area where this very question was put to the people involved in the survey, and the response was that 92 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of this change.
The principle of what I am proposing is quite simple and straightforward. Under this Bill I am proposing to give to the Director of Public Prosecutions — in any criminal case which has been dealt with by the higher courts — power to seek review of sentence. I emphasise that I am talking about the Circuit Criminal Court where the main indictable crimes are dealt with. I am talking about the Central Criminal Court where there are very few serious crimes reserved to be tried there, such as murder, treason, genocide and, of course, the Special Criminal Court. I am not talking about the District Court where crimes of summary jurisdiction are dealt with. Furthermore, I am not talking about giving the Director of Public Prosecutions power to decide on the sentence. I am merely suggesting that we empower the State law officer to bring the matter before the Court of Criminal Appeal. This would be a review court consisting of three judges drawn from the Supreme Court and High Court. It would be a matter for that court then to decide whether, in the circumstances, the sentence was proper, whether it should be quashed and replaced by a sentence more appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
I have included the necessary precautions by providing that no judge can sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal who had been involved in the earlier proceedings. I have also dealt with the powers of the Supreme Court from the point of view of dealing with any point of law of public importance.
What are the main objections that have been advanced to this Bill? One of the points raised by the Minister is that there was a similar procedure introduced in the United Kingdom in 1988 and that we should not automatically transplant any such procedure here. I accept that; of course we should not automatically transplant any such procedure introduced in the United Kingdom. But, at the same time, surely we have a precedent there which deserves to be examined? My understanding is that, since the introduction of that precedent in the United Kingdom, it has worked well. Furthermore, my understanding is that there have been quite a number of cases — obviously there is a much larger population there — which have been reviewed, in some cases in the United Kingdom and indeed in Northern Ireland, when sentences have been increased.
Our common law system is similar to the one operated in the United Kingdom. What I am saying is that while we should not automatically transplant anything introduced in the United Kingdom into our system we can learn from their experience and should examine their precedents and the way the system operates there. I believe that their system operates well and we should not allow any feelings we may have about the British system of justice to stop us taking on board that system.
The second question the Minister raised by way of objection was that of double jeopardy. This is a phony argument. Again, I have to say that it does not cause any problem in the United Kingdom where there is a similar type of legal system. The principle of double jeopardy does not arise following the conviction of a criminal. I accept entirely that it is a basic principle of common law that someone who has been tried and acquitted of committing an offence cannot be charged again on the same count. It is a spurious argument to raise the question of double jeopardy given that we are talking here about people who have been convicted and sentences imposed. With respect to the Minister the question of double jeopardy is a red herring.
The Minister then went on to refer to the concept of double punishment. I am not talking about double punishment but rather about a single punishment that fits the crime, which may be greater than the original sentence imposed which may have been as my colleague, Deputy Hogan, stated a few moments ago a suspended sentence for the rape of an 11 year old child. I am talking about the imposition of a single sentence and not double punishment. Again, with respect to the Minister his argument is another spurious one.
The Minister also made reference to the independence of the Judiciary and said that the constitutional position could be called into question in some way. The position is that sentences are appealed by convicted criminals every day of the week without the independence of the Judiciary being called into question. Therefore, how could it be called into question if the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to seek a review in the Court of Criminal Appeal? Again, this is another spurious argument.
The Minister referred to the need for consistency and uniformity in sentencing. I agree with him. I want to see far more consistency and uniformity and I suggest that this Bill will be of help in achieving this. I also accept that on its own it will not as I am strongly of the view that regular conferences of the judges of the different courts should be held at which sentencing policy would be reviewed and sentencing guidelines laid down. In this way, aided by the appeal system I am proposing, we will achieve consistency and uniformity.
The ridiculous question of travelling expenses for judges arose. A High Court judge told me that this aspect is an obstacle and a bar to the holding of such conferences of judges. The Minister should remove this obstacle straightaway.
The Minister also referred to the question of public comment. Again, I suggest that this is not a real problem. It may be a problem if we are talking about a case going before a jury but surely we have enough confidence in our judges to accept that they are not going to be affected by media comment. We would not do justice to judges if we were to suggest otherwise.
The Minister then raised the question of whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should be involved in the matter of seeking reviews. This is a fair question. In the United Kingdom the Attorney General is involved in seeking a review. I am open to argument on this but I think the Attorney General should be involved in cases here. I took into account the fact that the Attorney General has a quasi-political role and that in the United Kingdom the Attorney General is a law officer to the parliament whereas in this country he is a law officer to the Government. If it is the view of this House that it should be the Attorney General and not the Director of Public Prosecutions who should be involved, fair enough, that is not an obstacle for me. Similarly, the point made by the Minister on the question of a time limit was a very good one. I accept entirely that there should be a time limit within which the law officer would have to make the decision as to whether he should seek a review. This matter can be covered under the rules of court or, if thought necessary by this House, by way of an amendment to the Bill. There would be no problem about doing this on Committee Stage. It is an excellent point but one that is very easily resolved.
The question of legal aid was also raised by the Minister but, again, this is capable of resolution and does not touch the central principle we are discussing. In relation to the question of a District Court appeal to the Circuit Court, I have made it quite clear that we are talking about serious crime. This point can be dealt with on Committee Stage and the Minister is well aware that it is not my view that we provide that such cases should be capable of review within the terms of this Bill.
The Minister's main defence in not agreeing to give this Bill a Second Reading is that he wants to get the views of the Law Reform Commission. This question has been before the Law Reform Commission for four years who are an excellent body but who are inundated with work on both the criminal and civil side. They cannot cope with their work load and for this reason I have consistently proposed that a separate criminal law reform commission be established, as if we fail to do so we will never update or codify our law. It is not a defence to say that this matter should be dealt with by the Law Reform Commission as they have had this question before them for four years without touching it. It is also relevant to note that when the Law Reform Commission do produce a report in many instances it is left to gather dust and in others, as happened in the case of that notorious Larceny Bill, memories of which will stay with the Minister for some time——