Theresa Ahearn
Question:13 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Justice the number of petitions lodged in each of the years from 1990 to 1993; the numbers that were successful in reducing fines, time for payment, and both.
Written Answers. - Petition Statistics.
Jim Mitchell
Question:30 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice the number of petitions finalised by her Department in 1993; and the results of these petitions.
Mary Harney
Question:43 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Justice the nett loss to the Exchequer in each of the years 1992 and 1993 as a result of fines reduced by her under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 30 and 43 together.
Statistics relating to petitions are maintained by reference to petitions finalised rather than to petitions received or the fines involved. Information which is readily available is set out in a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report. Details of sums actually remitted under the petitions procedure are not extracted from court records for statistical purposes and could only be obtained by undue expenditure of staff time and effort over a protracted period.
I am satisfied that it is misleading to suggest that a loss of revenue to the Exchequer automatically arises as a result of the mitigation of fines under the petitions procedure. The fact that a fine is imposed does not mean that the Exchequer is assured of receiving payment of the sum involved. In fact, given that the basis on which most fines are reduced is the petitioner's inability to pay, one certainly cannot assert that reduction of the fine causes loss to the Exchequer. Every court order for the payment of a fine recognises that the fine may not be paid and provides an alternative penalty in default of payment. In many cases the alternative penalty provided by the court in default of payment of the fine is committal to prison I would remind the Deputy that the cost to the Exchequer of maintaining a prisoner is £700 a week or £38,000 per annum.
I should like to add a few general points about petitions. The petitions procedure is the exercise of clemency by the Minister for Justice under section 23 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, and delegated authority of Government dated 30 March 1951. This power to commute or remit penalties imposed by the courts is not as extensive as may be generally believed. Civil cases are excluded and there is no power to mitigate costs, expenses or compensation awarded by the courts or to intervene in the matter of community service orders, disqualifications from driving or endorsement of driving licences or in cases which aresub judice. Neither are petitions considered in cases where power of mitigation is conferred by legislation on other authorities, such as the Revenue Commissioners.
Any person is entitled to petition penalties which come within the scope of the petitions procedure, either on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another. Each case is considered on its merits having regard to the basis of petition, offence involved and penalty imposed.
Consideration is primarily given to any circumstances which might warrant mitigation and which, for one reason or another, was not made known to the court or which could not have been taken into account by the judge in fixing the penalty, for example, where a mandatory penalty is prescribed by law, or which arose subsequent to the court hearing. In the majority of cases the decision to exercise clemency is taken on humanitarian grounds as an alternative to the imprisonment of the defendant in default of payment of the fines imposed by the court.
I am satisfied from my experience of operating the procedure over the past year or so that it is a simple and straight-forward mechanism which enables a penalty to be varied, where appropriate, to take account of a defendant's current domestic and financial circumstances. I am also satisfied that I and my predecessors have operated the procedure in a responsible and compassionate manner.
I should like to state clearly that the petitions procedure is not an alternative to the court system in that it has no function in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant or the appropriateness or otherwise of penalties imposed by the court in the light of the evidence presented at the hearing. Such matters are properly the subject for appeal to a higher court and petitioners are usually advised to that effect, especially in the former case because there is no power to remove convictions under the petitions procedure.
|
Heading |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
|
(1) Estimated number of petitions received for the remission of fines and remission or commutation of prison sentences |
4,200 |
4,300 |
4,600 |
4,300 |
|
(2) Total number of petitions finalised |
5,780 |
4,882 |
3,568 |
4,050 |
|
(3) Number of petitions refused |
2,002 |
2,687 |
1,663 |
1,767 |
|
(4) Extension of time to pay |
1,340 |
689 |
387 |
604 |
|
(5) Full remission |
226 |
135 |
107 |
98 |
|
(6) Proposed partial mitigation of fines |
2,206 |
1,367 |
1,408 |
1,580 |
|
(7) Fines substituted in lieu of prison sentence |
6 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
(8) Annual value of fines remitted |
Not available |