Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Oct 1998

Vol. 495 No. 4

Written Answers. - Sentencing Policy.

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin

Question:

47 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the legislative measures, if any, he will introduce to ensure consistent sentencing in the courts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20271/98]

Jan O'Sullivan

Question:

320 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action, if any, he will take following the Law Reform Commission report on sentencing. [20298/98]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 47 and 320 together.

The courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and I, as a member of the Executive, am precluded from intervening directly.

Under our legal system, the law provides generally for maximum penalties for criminal offences. The law enables the judge to exercise his discretion, within the maximum penalty, by reference to the conclusions he or she has reached after trying the case, hearing all the evidence and assessing the culpability and the circumstances of the accused. Our system of recruitment to all levels of the Judiciary is based on the concept of bringing in experienced and trained legal practitioners and, consequently, judges, on appointment, have a wide knowledge of the law and its application.

Section 36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, makes provision for meetings of District Court judges to discuss, inter alia, the avoidance of undue divergence in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court and the general level of fines and penalties. While there is no similar provision in the case of other courts, I understand that they hold similar meetings.

The Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995, enables me to provide funds for judicial training courses arranged by the Judiciary and, this year, I made £50,000 available to the Judicial Studies Institute, which was established by the Chief Justice for the purposes of judicial training. I understand that the issue of sentencing has been examined by the institute in the context of its training programme.

The complex question of sentencing policy was addressed at length by the Law Reform Commission both in a consultation paper and its report on the matter. Action has already been taken on a number of recommendations contained in the report, for example the Criminal Law Act, 1997, abolished the penalties of penal servitude and imprisonment with hard labour.

Other recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission report are being considered at present. Any proposals which may emerge from this examination will be announced in the usual way. I should point out, however, that the report specifically recommends against the introduction of statutory sentencing guidelines. It is also the case that the report pointed up a number of differences of opinion among members of the commission in relation to some of the recommendations in that report, which tends to underline the obvious complexities which arise in relation to sentencing policy.

I might also mention that, as an aid for consistency in sentencing, the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, gives powers to the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against what appears to the director to be an unduly lenient sentence.