Joint Committee on Justice debate -
Tuesday, 28 May 2024

Scrutiny of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons (Amendment) Bill 2021

An Cathaoirleach

We have received apologies from Senator Vincent P. Martin and Deputy Mark Ward. Senator Robbie Gallagher is hoping to join us but has another engagement. I will begin with the usual housekeeping to remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones or switch them to flight mode so they do not interfere with the recording.

The purpose of the meeting today is to consider a Private Members' Bill from Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, the Firearms and Offensive Weapons (Amendment) Bill 2021. I welcome Deputy Jim O'Callaghan and our parliamentary legal adviser, David O'Neill, BL, to the committee and thank them both for being with us.

The proposed order of business is to have a briefing from the sponsor of the Bill, Deputy O'Callaghan, followed by engagement with the committee. We will do that in the usual round robin order. As members will be aware, sometimes we have a number of stakeholders and witnesses while at other times, we just have the Bill's proposer, depending on the complexity or otherwise of the Bill. It is up to the Bill's proposer what format they wish to choose. Deputy O'Callaghan is comfortable just having a discussion among ourselves with him as sponsor.

Senator Lynn Ruane

Do we not get to choose, as a committee, what way we do pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS?

An Cathaoirleach

This is not PLS. This is pre-Committee Stage scrutiny. This Bill has gone through Second Stage and has been referred to us to see whether it would pass. It is the tollgate stage to decide whether we allow the Bill to progress through to the next Stage. I think it will come back around for PLS after that. Am I right in saying there is a full PLS?

Clerk to the Committee

No.

Chairman

Okay.

It is in keeping with the memorandum of understanding at the start of the Oireachtas term, which we also followed for Deputy Gino Kenny's Bill. On that Bill we took a different approach because it was a wider subject matter and we had multiple submissions on that, over 1,000 actually. That was a little bit unusual. Normally, we are governed by the memorandum of understanding the Ceann Comhairle circulated at the start of the term. Am I right in saying that?

Clerk to the Committee

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

We might just go into private session for a moment to discuss that.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.09 p.m. and resumed in public session at 4.16 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, the sponsor of the Bill, is with us. I will invite the Deputy to set out the rationale behind the Bill and give us an overview of it. There is no particular hurry today because normally we would have a number of witnesses and we would need to divide the time. The Deputy can take five or ten minutes - whatever he needs. He is our only witness. When the Deputy has made his opening remarks, we will go around the table and members will contribute. We can engage and then have further rounds, if required. When our public session concludes, we will hold a private session with our parliamentary legal adviser for an assessment of the Bill from a legal perspective.

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for being with us. He is very welcome. I invite the Deputy to address the committee.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the Chairman, his staff and the members of the committee for permitting me to come before them this afternoon to try to obtain pre-Committee Stage scrutiny of the Bill.

Before I talk about the content of the Bill, I will give the committee some history as to how the Bill has already progressed through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I introduced the Firearms and Offensive Weapons (Amendment) Bill 2021 in Dáil Éireann on the 24 March 2021. It passed Second Stage on 15 July 2021. I am aware that issues may arise because there has been a significant delay in the Bill coming before the committee. I do not believe this is any fault of the committee, but I just thank members for taking the Bill at this stage. I ask the committee to give it careful scrutiny and consideration before it makes recommendations to the select committee as to whether the Bill should proceed to Committee Stage.

The purpose of the Bill is quite straightforward. Its purpose is to amend section 9 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. Members will be aware that the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 is a concise and accomplished piece of legislation that seeks to provide criminal sanction and regulation in respect of firearms and offensive weapons. The particular section of the Act I am seeking to amend is section 9, which deals exclusively with the possession of knives and other articles. Members will be aware that since the legislation was enacted in 1990, there have been a series of amendments to the section. I refer here to sections 9A to 9I. My amendments to the section deal exclusively with the possession of knives and other articles. The purpose of the Bill is to try to increase the maximum sentence relating to persons who are convicted on indictment of possession of a knife for the purpose of seeking to inflict harm on another.

The motivation to introduce this Bill came about in 2021. Unfortunately, the circumstances to which it related very much still exist. Part of the motivation for the introduction of the Bill was the increase in the significant number of knives that had been seized by members of An Garda Síochána in the years leading up to its introduction. Regrettably, there were some tragic instances of young men being the victims of assaults in which knives were used and as a result of which they subsequently died.

The committee will be aware of that. I remember, when we were at the convention centre during the Covid-19 pandemic, there were a series of knife attacks in the vicinity of the convention centre. A woman from Uruguay was fatally stabbed and a young boy from Dublin, Josh Dunne, was fatally stabbed. The statistics that are relevant to this are that, in 2016, the Garda seized 1,200 knives which increased to 1,600 knives in 2017. It further increased in 2018 to 2,000 knives. While the whole Covid period affected all sorts of statistics, in 2022, that figure of 2,000 was exceeded when 2,146 knives were seized by members of An Garda Síochána. It is also the case, regrettably, that we are seeing an increase in the number of people who are being treated in hospitals because they were the victims of knife assaults. In 2023, we saw an increase of 12% on the previous year in that 213 knife assault victims were treated in our hospitals in that year. The statistics indicate that there is, I regret to say, a growing problem with young men, and I regret to say that it is generally young men, who are carrying knives.

At the outset, I wish to say I am fully aware the approach to this problem cannot ultimately and exclusively be resolved through legislation and by simply increasing the maximum penalty available for those caught in possession of knives. I am well aware, and I am sure this is a matter the committee agrees with, that to combat this issue, we also need an educational programme to warn young men and boys of the dangers of carrying knives.

When looking at the tragic events that have given rise to people who have died as a result of knife assaults, the one consistent thing is that, in many instances, young men or boys take knives with them in the evening or during the daytime and have no intention of using them. They have no intention of getting into a fight but they believe they need to carry knives to protect themselves. Unfortunately, if there is a row or a fight and a knife is produced, regrettably, the consequences are tragic and, in many instances, fatal. Not only are they tragic and fatal for the individual who is the victim of the assault with a knife but they are also for the person who has carried the knife and who may never had intended to use it. That person will have their life destroyed due to participating in what generally is manslaughter as a result of a carrying of a knife on the night in question.

I am fully aware there has to be an education programme. When we look at it in schools and as politicians, we have to send a message to young people that the carrying of knives is unacceptable. Regrettably, boys and young men of a certain age seem to think it is necessary for them to carry knives. We can see that, once you carry a knife into a dispute, it is going to escalate the dispute and is going to create even worse consequences than would be the case if there were no knife. There is a whole area of work that needs to be done on the education programme.

As legislators, we also have to be able to send a message that the Oireachtas takes extremely seriously the offence provided for in section 9 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons (Amendment) Bill 2021. That is why, for the purpose of this proposed Bill, it seeks simply to do one thing in respect of amending section 9(7) of the possession of knives and other articles. It seeks to increase the penalty that can be imposed on a person who is convicted of an offence under section 9(4) or section 9(5) so that, if he or she is convicted on indictment, which is the serious offence in which a person is prosecuted in the Criminal Court, the person can be exposed to a term of imprisonment of up to ten years or a fine or both.

Members may wonder why this Bill is being reactivated, given that it was introduced in 2021 and has not progressed in any meaningful way since it passed Second Stage of the Dáil in July 2021. Part of the reason for that was that there did not seem to be any real interest in the Bill. Interest in the Bill was reignited when the new Taoiseach, Simon Harris, announced, on becoming Taoiseach, that he was going to bring forward legislation to increase the maximum penalties available in respect of firearms and offensive weapons and to deal specifically with knife crimes.

Since that was advocated by the Taoiseach, I indicated that this piece of legislation was ready and has been before the Dáil for three years. That is why I wanted to bring this Bill back before the committee.

I do not profess to have a monopoly on wisdom in respect of this Bill. I am very aware that people may be opposed to it and may seek to amend it. I am happy with that. In terms of proposed amendments, if I do get the liberty of the committee to bring it before the select committee, I probably will bring forward amendments. The amendment I would bring forward in the first instance would be to reduce the proposed increase in the maximum sentence from ten years to seven years. The reason I would do that is that the Taoiseach and the Government have indicated that they are prepared to increase it to seven years. I am not prepared to have a row or dispute in respect of such an issue with people who are prepared to support the thrust of the Bill, so in order to facilitate that I will bring forward my own amendment in that regard.

Second, I thank Mr. O'Neill for the legal advice he has given in respect of the Bill. I noted what he said about the commencement provision in the Bill. In general, when we look at any piece of legislation, it provides that the relevant Minister is the party that shall be entitled to commence the Bill and he or she does it by way of a statutory instrument. Members will see from section 2(2) that I have said the Act will come into operation on the day of its passing. Mr. O'Neill pointed out valid issues that could arise if an offence happened on the day of its passing, and whether "the day of its passing" takes into account its promulgation by the President. I am happy to advise the committee that I will bring forward an amendment for the purpose of saying in the ordinary way, the Minister will commence it by way of a statutory instrument.

They are the proposed changes to the Bill. Ultimately, it is proposed to increase the maximum sentence for a person convicted of offences under subsections (4) and (5) of section 9 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. That is of benefit because it would send out a message from the Oireachtas that we take a very dim view of people carrying knives in the public realm when they may be used for the purpose of inflicting harm on others. It is still going to be a matter for the Judiciary to determine what type of sentence should be imposed. Obviously, if somebody has no previous offences, that is something that will be taken into account by the court. Similarly, if somebody pleads guilty or expresses remorse for the possession of a knife, that is going to be taken into account by the court. It is not the case that this is proposing anything like a mandatory sentence. It is simply proposing that the maximum sentence that can be imposed where somebody is convicted on indictment for offences under subsections (4) or (5) will be increased to ten years, subject to what I have said about the Committee Stage amendments coming forward.

I am aware of issues in respect of criminal justice legislation and how it is a blunt tool in terms of trying to deal with social problems. I am aware also that a greater effort needs to be made to educate and warn boys and young men of the dangers of carrying knives. Nonetheless, as legislators, we are entitled to send out the message that we do regard the carrying of knives and the conviction for offences under subsections (4) and (5) as a more serious matter. The increase in the penalty should reflect our concern about the increase in seizures and the increasing instances of knife crimes.

I have gone on long enough. I am happy to answer whatever questions members have. Obviously, it is entirely a matter for the committee to conclude its pre-Committee Stage scrutiny of the Bill. I thank members for giving it consideration.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for all of that. We are now going to go around the table and hear from members. First up is Deputy Pa Daly, who had his hand up. He has seven minutes.

Deputy Pa Daly

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan. I also thank Mr. O'Neill. I am sure his contributions were-----

An Cathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Daly, but what we might do is take it in two parts. We will have an engagement with Mr. O'Neill separately in private session. Members can thank him and so forth, but we will not get into the nitty-gritty of his advice until the second part of the meeting, which will happen in private session.

Deputy Pa Daly

That is okay. I will just ask a few questions then. I understand Deputy O'Callaghan's point about sending a strong message from the Oireachtas on knife crime. My only concern is how effective it is going to be. I have a couple of questions.

Does he know what percentage of cases are dealt with on indictment because usually when they are dealt with on indictment, there would be another charge such as assault, assault causing serious harm or manslaughter, as the Deputy mentioned? I remember how there were difficulties in that section 9(1) could not be used after the bail referendum because it only carried a sentence of 12 months in jail. I think this was increased in 2009. The Deputy referenced the figures for seizures relating to knife crime. There were 490 offences under section 9(1) in 2020 while in the following years the number increased, in that in the following year it was 532 and there were further increases to 591 and 625. The figure for this year to date is 205. Increasing the penalties does not seem to make any difference to the number of knives being seized or the number of offences that are taking place. That is my main concern about it.

The Deputy mentioned that there must be an educational component. Perhaps some sort of restorative justice scheme should be introduced as well because there are a lot of young males from working-class areas and other areas who are carrying knives. It seems the increase in the penalties has not had any effect. In fact, the statistics have got worse. What then will be the impact? I was unable to find the percentage of cases that go on indictment, which is really what we are talking about here. That is my concern about increasing penalties. It sounds good but whether it will be effective or not is another thing.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank Deputy Daly for giving consideration to the Bill. The first question concerned how effective changing penalties or extending or increasing penalties will be. It is difficult to give an assessment as to how effective any criminal sanction is. Many criminal offences are increasing notwithstanding the fact that they have very significant penalties to them.

There is another part to why we include penalty provisions in our legislation. What it does is reflect how serious the Oireachtas regards the offence as being. We have a mandatory life sentence for murder. In terms of knife crime at present, under the law the maximum penalty that can be imposed is five years. In terms of the effectiveness of it, it may not be the case that changing penalties makes it more effective and reduces the number of offences but what it does is indicate to the public and persons that this is an offence that the Oireachtas regards as reaching into the more serious realm. That can be effective in itself. When legislation is going through, sometimes there are views about how long the penalty imposed in the legislation should be. Probably in the Oireachtas, we do not give sufficient consideration to the type of penalties that should be imposed and perhaps a greater variety of penalties should exist but certainly when it comes to criminal legislation, we are really limited if we want to communicate to the public the seriousness with which we regard the offences and with which we want the courts to regard these offences by looking at the penalty provision or the maximum penalty provision.

The Deputy also asked about the percentage of cases dealt with on indictment. I do not know.

The penalty that exists at present is not working. Obviously, our population has increased significantly which may explain why the offences are also increasing. When we look at the statistics the An Garda Síochána has presented, it is clearly the case that more young men and boys are carrying knives. I do not think there is any doubt about that and that numbers are increasing. We can just ignore it and say, "Okay, that is something we have to live with. It is a phenomenon in our society that we are going to have to accept", or else we can try to send a message not simply through education but also through legislation.

Increasing penalties might not result in the numbers decreasing in the short term, but the message will be sent out that it is regarded by the Oireachtas and consequently by the courts as a very serious offence. Those are my answers to the Deputy's questions.

Deputy Pa Daly

To reiterate, the point is that when the maximum penalty was increased, it could not be dealt with on indictment until 2009, if my memory is correct. Mr. O'Neill will probably be able to tell me. That does not seem to have had the desired effect. It would be my concern that the number carrying knives has increased rather than decreased. The intention behind the penalty, reducing the number of people carrying knives, does not seem to be working in the absence of-----

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

There is something happening. Deputy Daly is right that the number of knives being carried is increasing.

Deputy Pa Daly

Maybe we should be focusing our attention on youth work, the closure of youth centres and investment in communities, as much as on this. I do remember the cases that were dealt with while we were in the conference centre. Certainly, there was a charge of murder in one of them.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Just to conclude on that, I do not think they are incompatible. Obviously, we should be spending money on youth work and community projects and trying to ensure that younger men and boys have other outlets to avoid them getting involved in fights and knife crime but we cannot just sidestep the criminal justice side of it. That is my submission to the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank both Deputies. I call Deputy Pringle.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank the Chair. I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for his explanation of the legislation. Under section 7(a) a person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on summary of conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. The fine element has gone out of that. That means that under this Bill everybody who is caught in possession of a knife in a public place with a blade that is sharply pointed will be jailed for 12 months.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

A person found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on summary of conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. It is optional for the court as to whether or not it imposes a criminal sanction.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The sanction is the only option for the court. Deputy O'Callaghan said that in 2022, 2,146 knives were seized by the gardaí. How many charges were laid on foot of that?

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I do not have those statistics.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I think that is something that would be important for the House to know. According to section 7(b) refers to five months, 12 months and up to ten years on conviction on indictment. Is five years not a serious enough length of time to spend in jail for an offence such as this?

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

That is a maximum sentence. It is unusual for courts to impose maximum sentences.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

It is open to the court to do that.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

It is open to it to do that. However, it is difficult to assess the gravity of the crime when we are talking in the abstract but, generally, people will not be prosecuted for this. A lot of times this could be combined with a manslaughter charge. Maybe a person is not convicted of manslaughter and are acquitted. The remaining charge against them is a charge under section 9 of the Act. In circumstances like that, if the facts are particularly egregious, it might merit it.

Deputy Pringle makes a valid point about section 7(a). Looking at it again, I think it should include a provision in respect of a fine as this limits it too much. That is an amendment I will bring forward on Committee Stage to state that a fine can be imposed as well.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I think it is a bit extreme. There is no doubt that possession of a knife is a serious offence but why do we propose to extend the sentence to more years in jail?

I refer to five years in jail for somebody for a serious offence. There is research that shows that over 12 months or maybe 18 months in prison is detrimental to a person's mental health. Our response should not always be to increase sentences. The response should incorporate what Deputy Daly outlined, and what Deputy O'Callaghan spoke about, more diversion and a community response to stop people carrying knives and to encourage them to be more sensible. Perhaps it does not-----

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

If we look at the legislation that goes through the Oireachtas, vast amounts of very detailed legislation goes through. As Deputy Pringle knows, when it comes to the offences, we are limited to fines or maximum terms of imprisonment. We do not have any other penalties set out in our legislation for breaches of the criminal law. It would be an interesting process to see what other types of punishments we could introduce other than some community service because, generally, it is fines or imprisonment. That is what we are dealing with at present. It is a valid point, but I do think as the Oireachtas, and I know Deputy Pringle is not disputing this, we are entitled to set out how seriously we regard a criminal offence.

I note Deputy Pringle's point that five years is a long time in prison. It is a long time, but I do not think anyone is suggesting that this would apply to somebody caught for the first time in possession of a knife. This offence and charge would be triggered in situations where it is combined with other offences, where somebody has been charged with manslaughter or with a serious assault as well. They will also be charged with possession of a knife for the purpose of inflicting harm.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The charge of manslaughter would carry a heavier sentence anyway. If they are found not guilty of manslaughter, this would come into effect. Is it necessary? In 2022 of the 2,146 people who had knives seized from them, a proportion of those were charged with possession and got a conviction for that. That sends a stronger message than the Oireachtas passing new legislation increasing the period of imprisonment.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

They were convicted. I do not know the circumstances. Many were convicted summarily. If a person is caught in possession of a knife and it is a first offence, I think the court is going to look sympathetically on that. However, the purpose here, and I am sorry to be repetitive, is, as the Taoiseach indicated, to send a stronger message in respect of the possession of knives with the intention to inflict harm on others. The danger is that if we do nothing about it, it becomes a phenomenon. It is more common in some other countries for people to carry knives frequently. We do not have that here and if we do nothing to try to confront it, it is inevitable that it is going to grow.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Maybe it would be better if of those 2,146 people convicted for possession, some of them were prosecuted for that specific offence. That might send out a stronger message than the proposed legislation.

An Cathaoirleach

Of those 2,146 people, how many of them were prosecuted?

Deputy Thomas Pringle

We do not know.

An Cathaoirleach

Some of them presumably were.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

We do not know. .

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Some 2,146 knives were seized by An Garda Síochána in 2022. I do not know what its policy is when it seizes a knife. It is to prosecute, I presume.

An Cathaoirleach

We do not know whether some, all or none were prosecuted.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

That is right.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Deputies. I am going to move on to Senator Ruane, who will be followed by Senator Ward. Senator Ruane has seven minutes.

Senator Lynn Ruane

I thank the Cathaoirleach and Deputy O'Callaghan. Obviously, this is a very important topic. Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with the impact of knife crime from my own life experiences from both ends - both in terms of the loss of life and in terms of people quite close to me who regretted carrying knives at a young age and their use. I will refrain from going into that but it is quite close to my heart in terms of trying to understand the benefits of focusing on it from a criminal justice perspective.

I was looking at the knife crime evidence briefing from the College of Policing in March. As part of the work done by the college - and I would prefer if our work focused on this - it has been determined that people carry knives for protection and out of fear. I refer, for example, to circumstances where a young person may feel that the only way to protect themselves from the threat of violence or whatever is to carry a knife. If a young person is caught carrying a knife for whatever reason - I accept that we need reduce the incidence of this and make sure it does not happen - and is charged in this regard and goes to court, it will reduce their chances in the future. A crime of this nature would come under the spent convictions legislation, which means that the conviction would remain on their record forever, especially if they are over 18. A large number of those who carry knives are under 18 years of age. In that context, we see issues of self-presentation, street credibility and people feeling like they need to carry a knife perhaps for reasons relating to respect. In the UK, the authorities refer to offensive weapon carrying. Obviously, there is also a gender aspect. A large amount of research into knife crime has shown the impact of adverse childhood experiences, abuse, neglect and other potential criminality within someone’s family or their immediate community.

The Deputy is aware that these things have to happen in tandem. However, when we think of sending out a message, part of me is asking who that message is going to. When I was a young person, I did not go and look at what criminal sanctions hung over me if I engaged in a particular criminal activity. Things were usually reactive. In other words, done in the moment and without thought. The message of creating harsher penalties does not actually do anything at all in respect of the person who may carry a knife because the likelihood of them even knowing what potential offence hangs over them is highly unlikely. It sounds like a message is going out to a cohort in society who may never encounter knife crime. This creates the illusion that we are doing something, that we take this very seriously and that we will enact this legislation to illustrate that. However, the legislation will have no tangible effect when it comes to the carrying of knives. This legislation does nothing for those people’s whose lives are most affected by knife crime and the carrying of knives.

I am sure the Deputy is aware of this from his own work and research on the Bill, but there was a No Knives, Better Lives campaign in the UK. That campaign was targeted and funded by the state. It was consistently funded. It looked at alternatives to violence and so on, but it was very targeted at and focused on knife crime. As a result of it, there was an 85% reduction in the number of individuals under the age of 18 convicted for the handling of offensive weapons. I would love us to get to a point where the public know that the State, the Government and politicians are taking matters seriously and whereby we ensure that we radically invest in communities and in the young men who are most at likely to carry knives. Sometimes we have to introduce the concept of punishment to convince society that we take something seriously rather than actually addressing the root causes of and the alternatives to violence. If we look at knife crime in terms of violence, fear and trauma, we can see that one of the core drivers of violence is humiliation. I refer here to young men feeling humiliated or scared, or of not being able to meet their economic needs. I know the Deputy and everyone else is aware of this, but I am always struck that we have to introduce a criminal justice approach to show that we take something seriously rather than adopting some of the very targeted approaches that other jurisdictions have adopted in trying to reduce crime rates.

This is more me giving my views instead of asking questions. I would love for the Bill to have a wider scope. It does not allow for amendments relating to, for example, targeted research. That is because it is a criminal justice Bill.

We cannot put in all the other amendments to coincide with it, or in parallel. I would love to see legislation that was acting in parallel instead of one before the other.

I do not know whether I have any questions specifically on the Bill. Obviously, my concern is that we use this Bill as a message to somebody but it does not do anything to improve or save lives on the ground. I understand why people want to do it but I am not sure I feel this is necessary at this time, ahead of massive campaigns to reduce and understand knife crime in the first place.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the Senator for her contribution. She mentioned the No Knives, Better Lives campaign. There was a campaign that she is probably too young to remember in the 1990s called Bin the Blade. It was quite effective in-----

Senator Lynn Ruane

Was it amnesties and so on?

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Yes. It was just trying to get people to give up their knives. It was relatively effective. We got much publicity. I am fully aware that the criminal justice sanction is a pretty blunt tool. However, I do not think anything Senator Ruane said is incompatible with this. In respect of criminal justice legislation we introduce, perhaps we need to look in the future at trying to consider other types of sentences.

Senator Lynn Ruane

Community sanctions and stuff.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I have no problem with that. At present, the legislation is very much, as I said to Deputy Pringle, a fine and maximum term of imprisonment. That would be very detailed, complicated legislation but when there are offences, it is generally a fine. As Mr. O’Neill suggested in his proposal, you categorise the fines, or a term of imprisonment.

Regarding who it is addressed to, the people who are really suffering here are boys and young men. The incidents of criminality are dominated by guys between the ages of 15 and 25. Something happens to men in that decade. I do not know what it is but it is many things the Senator mentioned. They get very territorial, they want to show off and they believe it is important they exhibit their masculinity and that they are macho. That is who it should be addressed to. The Senator is right in saying it is a tragedy when we look at the people who are killed by knife crime and it is also a tragedy for the guy who goes out with a knife, does not intend to use it, a row happens – inevitably with drink involved – and he ends up using the knife with tragic consequences for the rest of his life. I agree with all the issues the Senator raised. However, as well as that, this is the only tool we really have here. Perhaps the Department of Justice can do other things but when it comes to our primary function, which is enacting legislation, there is not much more we can do to try to say that the Oireachtas regards this as a particularly serious issue other than increasing the penalties for it.

It would be interesting to try to do some research on the seizures by An Garda Síochána and the people who are being convicted of knife crime, but it is unquestionably the case that the numbers are growing. I do not know the reason for it. An increasing population can be one explanation. However, what we do not want to happen is for young guys and boys to think it is necessary for them to carry knives. We have not had that in Ireland. If that seeps in broadly, we will have more terrible incidents – their lives and the lives of victims ruined.

I take on board what the Senator said and I appreciate her giving it consideration. I do not disagree with anything she said in respect of the complexity of the causes of people getting involved in crime, but I also think it is not incompatible to say that as an Oireachtas we are entitled to say, "If you do this, and it is serious, you have got to realise there is a very strong maximum sentence here which could be imposed.2

An Cathaoirleach

We will move on to our online members. Senator Barry Ward is next.

Senator Barry Ward

First, I agree with the increase in penalties. It makes sense. What we are dealing with, as Deputy O’Callaghan said, is many young men in particular being penalised by this. It is important to distinguish between the summary and indictable elements of the existing legislation because you will see in the District Court many young men being prosecuted for what I think is very minor possession of even a pen knife on a key ring and things like that. Sometimes they might be stopped for something else and it is the only thing the Garda can get them on. They do proceed with prosecutions for things like that, which is not right, and it certainly is not helpful in the context of what we are really trying to address with this legislation.

I agree with the other commentators who said that the crimes involved are serious matters.

Possession of knives only ever really leads to serious consequences. I also accept what has been said about the fact that certain people bring a knife with them because they see it as their only mechanism for self-defence, and then something goes horribly wrong. I have been involved in a number of cases with very tragic consequences for people. It is a horrible thing.

The big question I have for Deputy O’Callaghan is whether this would not fit better, more easily and more effectively as an amendment to something like, for example, other criminal justice legislation such as the criminal justice Bill that has just gone through the Houses. Could it not have been an amendment to that? Would that not be an easier way to effect this? Is the firearms legislation as very simple tight net amendment not a better way to do it?

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the Senator for his comments. I am not proprietorial about the Bill. I have no difficulty if the provision I would like to see included in our law is brought through a criminal justice Bill or this Bill, which has been there since 2021. Obviously, there is an advantage. Although I am a Government TD, this is not a Government Bill. However, I would have thought there is an advantage if Government gets behind this, and if it does not get behind this, that it gets behind another amendment to a piece of criminal justice legislation. I think there is certain amount of urgency to it. However, as I said, I am not proprietorial. If there is another proposal that is brought through, I am happy to work alongside that. It is a provision that needs to be included.

Ultimately, with regard to increasing the penalty for knife crime, we need to amend the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990, as amended. I have tried to do it by way of a single Bill that has been there since 2021. If another Bill is going through, that is fine. However, I do not see it coming, to be honest, unless the Senator has greater insight than I do.

Senator Barry Ward

I am afraid not. I am just conscious of a Bill we have in the Seanad where colleagues of mine have brought forward amendments, Senator Regina Doherty particularly, related to statements or references being given at sentence stage as things that would be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, for example. That was ultimately put into a Government Bill. A stand-alone Bill obviously takes time in process like this, for example. It requires time in both Houses, which is more of a difficulty in the Dáil than in the Seanad, where there is already a Bill going through that addresses criminal justice issues. I just wonder if that would be more feasible. I appreciate that the Deputy is not proprietorial about it and it makes sense that if a vehicle does come along that suits it, an amendment could be stuck in to that effect that might acceptable to the Government. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying.

An Cathaoirleach

Unless any members wish to come in for a second round, I will invite our legal adviser to speak. However, in order to do that, I need to conclude the public session. Are we content with that engagement? Yes. In that case, I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for engaging the members on that. We will now go into private session.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.58 p.m. and adjourned at 5.37 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 June 2024.