Vol. 450 No. 6
8 Mr. P. Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly) asked the Minister for Justice her views on whether remission of sentence for convicted persons in child sexual abuse cases can cause problems if these persons are perceived to have returned too soon to the area where the crime was committed; and the plans, if any, she has to change the law relating to remission of such sentences. [3568/95]
Under prison rules all prisoners are entitled to 25 per cent remission of sentence for good conduct. Remission may be forfeited by the governor, visiting committee or Minister for Justice for a breach of prison discipline. The grant of remission and the threat of losing it for misbehaviour encourages offenders to co-operate with prison managements in maintaining order and control. I am, therefore, satisfied that, for sound management reasons, remission should continue to be granted as heretofore.
Remission, when granted at present, is unconditional. To meet the point raised by the Deputy would require the rules to be changed to allow the Minister to impose conditions as required for the duration of the remission period — in this kind of case a condition not to return to the area where the crime took place. I can see some merit in the suggestion and will examine it in the context of the drafting of new prison rules which is underway.
I should add of course that the courts, in determining the sentence to be imposed in individual cases, is aware of the fact that a standard 25 per cent remission rate applies as a matter of entitlement for good behaviour. The existence of standard remission does not mean, therefore, that the offender is released earlier than the judge thinks appropriate — what it means in practice is that the offender who misbehaves while in custody may serve a longer period in custody than would have applied had he been of good behaviour.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I am glad the Minister mentioned the new rules. The question was tabled in response to concerns of constituents for some time that many matters militated against reporting these types of crimes. Does the Minister agree that generally and, specifically in light of the ruling this morning, sentencing policy, the length of sentence and remission in cases of child sexual abuse needs urgent review, particularly as the Minister referred to the problem of not returning the perpetrator to the area of the crime too early? Does she agree there is a need to educate the Judiciary in dealing with sexual crimes against children so that the views and perceptions of the victims and their families are to the forefront in the minds of the Garda, the DPP and the Judiciary when dealing with such cases?
The House will agree that over the past few years a greater effort has been made to ensure that sexual abuse crimes against children are made public and that our laws reflect the needs in such awful cases. As outlined in the Programme for Government, the proposed prison rules will be referred to the Committee on Legislation and Security and all Members will have an opportunity to make an input to the proposed changes. I wonder if the Deputy is thinking in terms of the facility available to give people either short term or full time temporary release from a sentence. If I receive a request for a day or weekend temporary release in such cases I am conscious that the prisoner may well return to the scene of the crime and I take that into account in making a decision.
(Laoighis-Offaly): Where sexual crimes are committed against children, does the Minister agree that there is need to educate the Judiciary so that the views of the victims and families are to the forefront and that this may not be appreciated given that it is composed mainly of males at present? Will she look at the area of overlap between reporting to the Department of Health and the Department of Justice, through the gardaí to ensure there is consistency and follow-up action?
I will take the Deputy's suggestions on board. The issue of reporting to the Garda is dealt with in another question. It is essential that these kinds of crimes are reported and prosecutions taken as quickly as possible. There is still legislation awaiting finalisation, including a Bill dealing with domestic violence to be introduced by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, which will strengthen existing powers to deal with issues like this which arise too often.
Does the Minister intend to bring in legislation providing for minimum sentences in cases of unlawful carnal knowledge?
I assume the Deputy is referring to some kind of mandatory sentencing system. This issue has been discussed by different Ministers but it has not been considered appropriate to proceed along those lines. I do not have any proposals to bring in mandatory sentencing but any legislation I amend will take into account the severity of the crime committed and the need for the sentencing.
The Minister said there was a 25 per cent remission of sentence for good behaviour. As regards the startling and inexplicable reduction in sentence from 14 years to four years announced today, will the three-and-a-half years be taken off the bottom period? If that is so, are we looking at a six months' sentence for a most heinous crime?
I am sure the Deputy knows I cannot comment on a decision made by the courts. As I said in reply to a supplementary which was half allowed by the Chair, the DPP does not have jurisdiction to appeal against the sentence.
The reduction is a general principle.
The 25 per cent remission is known to the judges when they pass sentence and it is based on the sentence passed by the court. If someone gets a sentence of nine years, the 25 per cent is on the nine years.
If he gets remission, is the 25 per cent on whatever sentence is given?
The reduced sentence.
It is on the reduced sentence?
That is the sentence passed today by the Supreme Court. As regards the remission, the Deputy would have to take that up with the courts because I have no jurisdiction over their decision.
I never suggested the Minister had.
The 25 per cent remission is on the final sentence passed by the court.
He now has a six months' sentence for a reprehensible and heinous crime which everyone condemned. There is something startling, inexplicable and faulty in the system.
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about when she mentions a six months' sentence in this case. If he received a sentence of four years and there is a 25 per cent remission, it is not six months which he has left to serve.
As regards the 25 per cent remission of sentence for child abusers, is the Minister aware that most paedophiles are fixated, in other words, they do not respond to treatment and have a high propensity to reoffend? Does she agree that to allow a 25 per cent remission of sentence to such people flies in the face of the justice system and allows such people to be released back into the community where they are guaranteed to reoffend?
The 25 per cent remission rate has existed in our law for some considerable time and does not differentiate between one type of crime and another. I have not heard any Deputy suggest that remission should be done away with totally——
In child abuse cases.
——or whether it should be reduced to 50, 20 or 10 per cent. Judges must decide what sentence is appropriate to a crime, taking into account that there is a 25 per cent remission rate in this jurisdiction. In Northern Ireland the rate is 33? per cent and there is a higher rate available for all crimes in other jurisdictions. It is up to the judges to decide the appropriate sentence knowing full well that 25 per cent of it will be remitted.
I am not arguing against the 25 per cent remission because if we did not have such a remission I shudder to think how difficult it would be to get a person into prison in the first instance. It facilitates the turn-around of prisoners. Will the Minister comment about what appears to be a ludicrous sentencing policy where a person can be sentenced to 14 years in prison and, on appeal, have it reduced by ten years to four years? Does she agree that it is indicative of a crazy sentencing policy——
The Minister cannot voice her views on that matter.
That matter is outside the scope of the Question and I would prefer not to hear any more about it.
The question deals with the premature release of child sexual abusers.
We are talking about the remission of sentences. A passing reference was allowed to that matter earlier but it is not in order now and I ask the Deputy not to pursue it.
Will the Minister agree to review seriously sentencing policy in child sexual abuse cases?
The Law Reform Commission published a discussion paper on sentencing policy a couple of years ago to which they are now putting the final touches and any changes in sentencing policy arising from their reviews will be proposed to Government. The Deputy will know full well that, as Minister for Justice, I cannot, nor can anybody else in this House, pass judgement on any sentence handed down by the courts since they are separate and independent of this Parliament.
(Laoighis-Offaly): In the course of drafting new prison rules — which she has said will be laid before this House — will the Minister specifically consider the matter of remission for convicted offenders guilty of sexual crimes against children? Given the lack of counselling for such people and the low success rate of treatment programmes, would she agree that is a specific case for a lesser remission in such cases? Furthermore, would she agree there is need for proper education, training and a raising of awareness, even on the part of members of the Judiciary, of the effect on the victim and his or her family in cases of sexual crimes against children?
I shall certainly take into account what the Deputy has said in drawing up the relevant prison rules, drafts of which will be sent to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to allow all Members to have an input before finalisation.
9 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice the number of gardaí who were seriously injured in the course of duty, excluding accidental injury, in each of the last three years; the number of gardaí who were permanently disabled following on such attacks as a result of their injuries; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5480/95]
The information concerning injuries relates to applications for compensation made by gardaí in accordance with the provisions of the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts, 1941 and 1945. These provide for the payment of compensation to members of the Garda Síochána who have malicious injuries inflicted on them in the performance of their duties or otherwise while acting in a general capacity as members of the Garda Síochána while off duty.
The following are the relevant statistics in relation to the operation of these Acts in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. The cases shown in column (2) are not necessarily represented also in column (3) because of the delay which can sometimes occur between the actual application and subsequent court hearing.
|
Year |
Number of applications received |
Number of awards made in the High |
Expenditure on awards including legal costs |
Number of members permanently disabled as a result of attacks while on duty |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
|
1992 |
372 |
293 |
£4,471,000 |
3 |
|
1993 |
325 |
151 |
£2,450,000 |
Nil |
|
1994 |
283 |
167 |
£3,482,000 |
Nil |
A number of these cases could be defined as serious. However, it is ultimately a matter for the High Court to decide the degree of seriousness by determining the amount of compensation to be awarded in each case.
While nothing the Minister's reply dealt mainly with claims for personal injuries to gardaí, would she agree — in terms of public policy vis-à-vis our criminal justice system — the clear message should go forth from this House that an attack on a member of the Garda Síochána while on duty is no ordinary assault, that very strict, heavy sentences should be meted out to the perpetrators of such assaults when brought to justice? Does she agree it is inappropriate that the matter should be dealt with as an ordinary criminal assault?
I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that shooting an unarmed garda is a disgraceful act which should not be accepted in our society. However, the sentencing of anybody convicted of such an act is a matter for the Judiciary. I know the Deputy will have in mind the most recent shooting of an unarmed uniformed Garda in Capel Street earlier this month. I might avail of this opportunity to commend Garda Peter O'Connor on his bravery and dedication to duty and wish him, as I am sure would all Members, a speedy recovery. I cannot say more at present because I am glad to be able to inform the House that somebody was apprehended yesterday for that shooting.
Would the Minister agree that it should be within the capability of this House to legislate for the creation of a separate offence of wounding a garda in the course of his or her duty? Would she agree that the fact of 283 such assaults in 1994 indicates the need for such legislation on our Statute Book? Would she also agree that such legislation would constitute a deterrent and a good means of sending out a strong message to people who appear to think an assault on a member of the Garda Síochána is an ordinary assault and is permissible?
This is a statistical question.
I will give the Deputy's suggestion consideration.
Does the Minister consider there are sufficient armed plain clothes gardaí serving on task forces or in other roles operating as a back-up to uniformed unarmed gardaí. Would she also agree that uniformed gardaí should not be armed but there should be an increase in numbers of armed plain clothes gardaí?
The Deputy would appear to be going beyond the bounds of this question, which is a statistical one.
The Minister is capable of answering it.
