Charles Flanagan
Question:16 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he intends to broaden the scope of mandatory custodial sentences on conviction for serious crime. [17056/97]
Other Questions - Mandatory Custodial Sentences.
Mandatory custodial sentences apply at present only to the crimes of murder and treason and where there is a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. In the case of treason and murders that previously would have been capital murders, section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1990 obliges a court, in passing sentence, to specify imprisonment for a period of 40 years as the minimum period to be served. A minimum of 20 years is set down for attempted murders to which that section applies.
The House will be aware that, with the limited exceptions which I have mentioned, the traditional approach of the Oireachtas to sentencing matters has been to establish maximum penalties which apply to particular offences leaving it for a court to decide, in the light of all the circumstances of a particular case, to impose a penalty which it believes appropriate, subject to the maximum penalty set down in legislation.
Generally, that approach to sentencing has served us well and I would not favour a wide extension of mandatory custodial penalties; I know I speak on behalf of the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, in making that point. Nevertheless, the House will be aware that as the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Justice, the Minister, when in Opposition, proposed that minimum ten year sentences should apply in the case of serious drug trafficking offences. Regrettably, this approach did not find favour with the Government of the day. The Minister is more convinced than ever that the unique dangers posed by drug traffickers to the very fabric of our community clearly warrant exceptional measures. Accordingly, the Criminal Justice Bill which the Minister will be publishing very shortly will include a provision for minimum ten year sentences in serious drug trafficking cases.
Would the Minister accept, as the import of the initial part of her answer suggested, that a State's imposition of mandatory sentencing is fundamentally wrong and gives rise to the administration of bad law? The proposal she outlined in the second part of her answer is such a proposal. Given that she seems to suggest it is worthy of the Government to take from the Judiciary the power to deal with a case as presented before the courts, does she accept that sentencing policy on conviction by a court must bear a relationship to the fundamentals of the case, that each and every case is unique and that the imposition of mandatory sentences is, in effect, tying the hands of the Judiciary? Does the Minister accept that the Judiciary in some circumstances should have their hands tied in the manner in which the Minister proposes?
Persons involved in trafficking controlled drugs to the value of £10,000 are, by any definition, playing a major role in the illegal drugs trade. The legislation the Minister expects to bring forward is to deal with this important issue. Ten thousand pounds worth of drugs is quite substantial and a minimum ten year sentence would appear appropriate. The provision will be drafted in such a way as to include appropriate safeguards. These details will be clear once the Bill is published.
Is the Minister aware the average sentence on conviction for a person convicted of murder is approximately eight to nine years?
Is the Minister seriously suggesting it is fair in any jurisdiction to implement a law whereby somebody found with a pocketful of cannabis will serve more time in prison than a convicted murderer?
Many people consider dealing to that extent in drugs of that type would be very close to the other very serious crime to which the Deputy referred. I do not know that any of us could realistically refer to £10,000 worth of cannabis as a pocketful of cannabis. It certainly would have to be viewed by the Oireachtas as substantially more serious than that.
How big is such a consignment?
I am not able to say, but drug trafficking to that extent is a very serious crime, bearing in mind the substantial impact this has had on so many families and particularly on young people. I am sure the Deputy would agree that nobody could say this is not a hugely serious crime. In the climate in which we are operating today the Minister feels it is important to introduce mandatory sentencing because of the seriousness of the crime.
(Mayo): Would the Minister of State agree this is a knee-jerk reaction by her colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, in that when he discovered the Garda Commissioner frowned on his zero tolerance policy he decided to dilute zero tolerance and to apply it to one aspect of crime, namely, drugs? Has there not always been zero tolerance in the case of drugs, particularly among the Judiciary who, without mandatory sentencing, have always handed down very heavy punitive sentences? Does the Minister not realise there is every likelihood that by taking discretionary powers from the Judiciary and introducing minimum sentencing he is doing something that, even though politically popular in the short term, will ultimately be proven to be unconstitutional when the Bill is finally examined if it is passed?
When the Law Reform Commission reported in July 1996 the then Minister, Deputy Owen, said that she recognised there were great complexities involved in relation to some of the recommendations contained in the report. For example, the commission recommended the abolition of mandatory and minimum sentences for imprisonment for indictable offences. This would mean in practice that mandatory life sentences would be abolished. Deputy Owen said that while she respected the views of the commission she was conscious that there were cogent arguments for maintaining the status quo.
I would have thought that is an argument for maintaining the status quo.
Let me clarify what I said. The Law Reform Commission recommended the abolition of mandatory sentences but Deputy Owen disagreed.
I understand that point but the Law Reform Commission did not recommend an extension of mandatory sentencing. Does the Minister of State not think that her words sound hollow when one considers that during the watch of the current Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, who has committed himself to a policy of zero tolerance to get to grips with the problem of drug dealing, a man charged with possession of £1.5 million worth of drugs was mistakenly let out on bail? This is the first time I have heard the figure of £10,000 mentioned in relation to drug trafficking. Is the Minister of State aware that there are instances where drug addicts are involved in dealing to feed their habit and that on occasion judges in sentencing have taken into account the fact, even where the charge is a serious one, that an addict has attended for treatment and is clean? Is she not concerned that this facility would no longer be available and that a young life could be blighted as a result of what appears to be an arbitrary decision by the Minister which goes against the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission in every way?
The Oireachtas has taken the view that drug trafficking poses a unique threat and that special measures in relation to sentences need to be taken. The Fianna Fáil election manifesto contained a commitment to provide for mandatory ten year sentences for those caught in possession of controlled drugs with a street value of £10,000 and over. This received substantial coverage at the time. This is not therefore the first time the figure of £10,000 has been mentioned. We are being consistent. The Minister said in the House previously that it is hard to imagine a more corrosive threat to the quality of life in our community than that posed by those who engage in the evil trade of drug trafficking. Their activities have resulted in death and destruction on an incalculable scale. As we are all aware, families have been destroyed and communities placed under siege.
We all agree with that.
The Government is extremely anxious to take the issue of drug trafficking seriously. That is the reason the Minister has made these proposals.
Let me explain briefly to the Minister of State——
We cannot have explanations at Question Time.
May I ask a question then?
I am proceeding to Question No. 17.
Does the Fianna Fáil document have any credibility at this stage? Can it be believed?
May I ask a final supplementary?
No, I have called Question No. 17.