Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1999

Vol. 506 No. 2

Written Answers. - Sentencing Policy.

Seán Ryan

Question:

61 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the sentencing arrangements for crimes against a child; if he has satisfied himself with the sentencing policy for crimes against a child in view of a recent sentence (details supplied); the plans, if any, he has to review this policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15394/99]

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

74 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on the introduction of non-statutory guidelines on sentencing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15379/99]

John Gormley

Question:

83 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the public concern regarding apparent inconsistency in sentences handed out by judges; the plans, if any, he has to regulate the judicial process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13100/99]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 61, 74 and 83 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 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. In so far as consistency of sentencing is concerned, I consider it important to mention that the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions may apply to the court for a review of what appears to the director, to be an unduly lenient sentence.

The complex question of sentencing policy was addressed at length by the Law Reform Commission who specifically recommended against the introduction of statutory sentencing guidelines. Its report pointed out 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.

The Courts and Courts Officers Act, 1995, enable me to provide funds for judicial training courses arranged by the Judiciary and, this year, I made £60,000 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.

I might also mention that 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 they hold similar meetings.

The Sixth Report of the Working Group on a Courts Commission also made reference to the issue of sentencing. The working group suggests that judicial education could be addressed by a judicial standards body in liaison with the Judicial Studies Institute. This new body could,inter alia, provide a monitoring and analytical service on matters such as sentencing along the lines of the Judicial Commission in New South Wales. I am pleased to inform the House, in this regard, that the Chief Justice has established a Judicial Committee to consider, inter alia, the recommendations made in the working group report and the Judicial Committee, met on 19 May 1999.