I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of Report No. 77 of the National Economic and Social Council entitled "The Criminal Justice System: Policy and Performance.
I would at the outset like to pay tribute to the NESC for producing almost 9 Reports on very important economic and social matters over the past 12 or 13 years. I think their continuing work is something which we in public life all too infrequently pay tribute to.
I should also like to welcome the fact that the NESC have commissioned and produced this report on the criminal justice system with particular emphasis on the policy underlying that system and the performance of that system to date. It is extremely important the the criminal justice system of any country should be under constant scrutiny and the fact that it has been examined from a performance point of view is, I think, a very very good thing. The fact that there are difficulties inherent in effecting that examination are highlighted in this report and I think that the difficulty is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the report has made difficult reading.
While I pay tribute to the NESC for commissioning this report, it is only fair to be critical of the manner in which the report is written and, indeed, the manner in which the report is put together. The report identifies certain central problems in the criminal justice system but in the presentation of those problems they have not been presented in any uniform or coherent way. Therefore, one of the problems that one has in reading this report or in addressing oneself to this report is the fact that many issues which are central to the problem we are talking about are raised continuously within the report but are not addressed specifically in a coherent way or in a way which allows in-depth examination.
It is true to say that one of the problems we have in this country with our criminal justice system is the fact that it is built upon centuries of law and tradition and of social understanding of what is criminally acceptable and unacceptable and built, above all, upon the way in which society should deal with criminal matters. The fact that we have experienced such amazing social change in Ireland in the past 25 years is something which few will dispute. At the same time, I think it is regrettable that our criminal justice system has not updated itself and has not geared itself to deal with the problems of the latter part of the 20th century. The fact that we have a system in operation which from a legal point of view is based by and large on the common law and on statute law, which are certainly pre-20th century creates, difficulties. The fact that in the administration of that system our criminal courts still operate within the framework of the Courts Act, 1924, is also something which must be regretted bearing in mind the changes which have taken place in criminal procedure in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. Above all, the unsatisfactory situation exists in regard to the very central role of the Garda Síochána within the criminal justice system. The fact that we as a State and a society have not addressed ourselves to the resolution of these problems and to attempting to update the roles of the various pieces that form the whole of the criminal justice system is something that must be regretted.
Certainly, changes have taken place in the past few years and certainly the present Minister for Justice indicated his determination to see that there are changes to make the criminal justice system both in its administration and in terms of the corpus of law existing and in terms of the prosecution of the system. The fact that the Minister has a commitment to these changes is welcome but the fact that so little has happened is on, the other hand, to be regretted.
We are also faced with the fact that our system derives from a society that was basically authorative, a society with a pyramidal social system, a society which defined roles for people. The system we have inherited was based upon that type of society. The fact that we now experience a more democratic type of society with a less pyramidal class structure and with a more fluid sense of attitudes, the fact that we do not have a criminal justice system to fit in with that type of society is something that must be regretted. We have, on the one hand, the question of maintaining the rule of law and maintaining law and order and we have, on the other hand, the question of ensuring that the right of the individual is protected. To get that balance right can, indeed, be very difficult. The fact that we have experienced the kind of change I am talking about can be identified if one refers to the fact that the last hanging in Ireland took place 30 years ago and that was punishment for a crime, punishment on conviction for a crime. As recently as 1964, a mere 20 years ago, we still found it socially acceptable and, indeed, legislated for the death penalty in respect of certain types of crimes in the Criminal Justice Act, 1964.
The fact that our attitudes to the penalty for particular types of crimes have changed so greatly in 20 years is illustrated by the fact that we have on the Order Paper of the Seanad today a Bill entitled the Criminal Justice (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, 1984, and the fact, of course, that there is a commitment and a determination by the Government to ensure that the death penalty is abolished. I use the word "penalty" because we must ask ourselves if the criminal justice system is meant to be a penal system. Is it meant to be a system which simply punishes somebody who is in breach of the criminal code; or, on the other hand, should it be a system which operates in a preventative sense and should it be a system which operates in a rehabilitative sense? Should our criminal justice system see itself as having a role in preventing crime? Should it see itself as having a role in rehabilitating people as distinct from punishing people who have been in breach of the criminal justice system? I would say, as somebody who has experience of the law operating within the system, that certainly there is a very definite and welcome movement towards the latter concept: that the criminal justice system and the courts in particular, and indeed, the Garda to a lesser extent, should play their role to ensure that the system is a rehabilitative and preventative system. That would make the system relevant to our economy, because every crime that is committed is not merely a crime against an individual, it is not merely a breach of criminal law, but it is an act which damages the whole fabric of our society in a social sense and in an economic sense. For that reason we have to ensure that the criminal justice system operates to prevent the commission of crimes and to help those who have found themselves in a situation where crime was being committed.
One of the central problems identified in this report is that we have so little information available on how the system works. That is one of the most unfortunate findings of this report. In so far as the report addresses itself to the operation of the Garda and in so far as the report addresses itself to the operation of the courts, the point comes across very clearly that there are absolutely inadequate statistics available to gauge the performance of the Garda, in terms of investigating crime, in terms of ensuring that the criminals are brought before the courts and, above all, in ensuring that, following the courts' dealing with criminals, satisfactory steps are taken in relation to those criminals.
The same point comes out in relation to the court system. There is a completely inadequate back up there to provide the essential statistics. Of course, if that type of data is not available it is extremely difficult for the Government of the day to ensure that the necessary steps can be taken to make the criminal justice system more beneficial to our society. I would urge upon the Minister of State tonight firstly to ensure that her Department take steps to see that the statistics of crime which are published by the Garda Commissioner are made relevant and, secondly, that the statistics which emerge in relation to the dealing of criminal matters by our criminal courts are also made more relevant.
One of the more interesting aspects of this report is appendix 2, which is The Galway District Court study carried out by Professor Kevin Boyle into criminal matters that came before the District Court in Galway between 1978 and 1981. The interesting fact that comes out in the overall report is that the Galway survey is, perhaps, the only survey of its kind existing, the only in-depth survey of people who came before the criminal system, in-depth examination of the types of crimes with which they were charged and an in-depth examination of how the District Court which, of course, is the most important criminal court of all, disposed of those matters. The fact that that is the only in-depth examination and the fact that the extant court records and current court records do not make available that kind of information is extremely unfortunate.
I should like to refer to Chapter 5 of the report, which is the most important and most helpful chapter of the report. This is the chapter entitled "The Performance of the Irish Criminal Justice System: the Garda Síochána and the Courts" and, in referring to the chapter, I should like to deal with the Garda Síochána first and the courts secondly. Let me quote from page 122 of chapter 5:
There is a substantial gap in Ireland between objectives, as given in Chapter 3, and what we can in fact measure. In particular, we lack information on the decisions made within the criminal justice system.
That, again, confirms the point I made about statistics and about the difficulty in assessing what our criminal justice system is doing for us. I should like to quote from chapter 3 entitled, "Evaluating Criminal Justice Policy and Performance". On page 73 are set out seven objectives of clear relevance to social policy which should be part of the process of assessment. These are as follows. The first is:
... the full utilisation by the courts of the range of options for case disposition, linked to the range of offences so that the minimum stigma and punishment is imposed as is necessary in the circumstances.
It is extremely important that the minimum stigma in punishment be imposed. It is also important that the full range of options be availed of. It is also important that we have some idea of what options were availed of and of what success or failure was achieved in the use of any particular option. That is where the system at the moment falls down, in so far as we have an ability to evaluate the end result.
Secondly, the avoidance of unnecessary delay in case proceedings. This, of course, is a desirable objective. I am glad to say that it is certainly one which appears to be increasingly achieved. Increasingly our civil courts and criminal courts are getting through their workloads more speedily; and I welcome the steps taken by the Minister for Justice in the recent Courts Bill to appoint additional judges, particularly to the Circuit Court, to ensure the more speedy dispatch of criminal business in Cork and elsewhere. It is extremely important that criminal matters be dealt with speedily because once a person is suspected of a crime, once a charge is preferred, then a question mark hangs over that person until the matter is finally disposed of.
Thirdly, "The courts should make full use of the advice available from Probation Officers and other professional groups who are able to provide the Judiciary with evaluations prior to sentencing". I agree with that. It is important in criminal matters that the court and judges should take full cognisance of whatever professional information is available in so far as that information can help the accused person without in any way damaging society as a whole whom the criminal justice system is there to protect. It is extremely important in so far as probation officers can help people who come before the court that the Judiciary take cognisance of what they have to say.
Fourthly, "consistency in sentencing". This is an issue which has given rise to much thought. It is an issue that has given rise to an amount of discussion in recent years following a number of contentious cases where, in apparently similar circumstances, differing sentences were imposed by judges in the same level of court. Obviously, there is a desire that there should be consistency in sentencing. The legislative obligation that is imposed on the President of the District Court to ensure that his justices meet at least annually to discuss matters such as this should also be imposed on the President of the Circuit Court and on the President of the High Court to ensure that the members of their respective benches also meet for that purpose within the criminal sphere. Having said that, I have to accept that the Judiciary do meet on an increasingly regular basis, but there should be a statutory obligation to do so, particularly in so far as criminal matters are concerned.
Fifthly, "The courts of law should convey by their physical appearance and the manner in which they conduct their proceedings, the seriousness, dignity and openness of their work. Conveying such an atmosphere is one objective of the criminal courts". In so far as that objective is stated in the NESD report, it is certainly one where we have dismally failed. The demeanour, the physical appearance, the atmosphere existing within most of our court buildings are absolutely appalling. There is no dignity whatsoever attached to the administration of justice in this country. There is no solace or comfort available to those who come before the courts. The courts physically operate in the most appalling surroundings. It is no answer for any Minister to say that the obligation lies with local authorities to ensure that their courthouses are kept in a proper condition. That should not be the duty of local authorities. The Government should make substantial funds available for the purpose of putting our courthouses into proper repair and condition.
I know that the Minister of State has made a special commitment to the whole area of family law. If the Minister of State realised the courts' physical conditions within which family law matters are dispatched, she would agree with the points I am making in relation to the criminal courts also.
The sixth objective is "That all persons involved in a court proceeding should be able to hear what is being said and to understand the terminology and procedures". It is important that the criminal courts operate in a way that is meaningful and understandable to John Citizen and that does not happen at the moment. The structure, the physical layout of our courtrooms, the way in which people are accommodated within courtrooms make it difficult for them to hear what is happening in most courtrooms but, secondly, the language, the terminology, the procedures make the entire thing extremely difficult.
The final point that is made in Chapter 3 is one of the objectives relevant to social policy, that is, "The importance of access to legal assistance attuned to the needs of all groups". There is a system of legal aid available in Ireland, it operates reasonably satisfactorily.
I should like to return to chapter 5 of the report, the question of the performance of the Garda and of the courts. Page 123 deals with the whole accountability of the system. It states:
...There is an abundance of statistical tabulations, produced annually, but the information provided fails to meet the three essential criteria for information on criminal justice: (1) that it provides the public with an accurate indication of the problem and of what is being done about it, (2) that it allows for accountability and evaluation of what the police, courts, prison service, and Department of Justice have done, and, (3) that it allows for rational planning.
Let us deal with the first point which is to provide the public with an accurate indication of the problem. The public are aware that we enacted the Criminal Justice Bill last year. The public are vaguely aware that the courts have power to order somebody to do community work in lieu of going to prison but the public have no overall awareness of the operation of the criminal justice system. The public have no appreciation of the operation of the system. Increasingly the public regard the criminal justice system as something which operates in a very inadequate manner and the public, above all, do not see Government at either executive or legislative level tackling the problem of crime.
In so far as the public are made aware of what is being done, it is important that a realistic public relations exercise be embarked on. I underline the word "realistic" because we have had unrealistic public relation exercises embarked upon by people with responsibility for the Department of Justice in the past. It is important that the way in which the problem has been tackled, both from a police point of view, and how the courts consider the matter, should be conveyed to the public at every level, in the media, on television and through the schools so that our young people can see in a real way how justice is being administered.
The second point is to allow for accountability and evaluation of what the police, courts, prison service, and Department of Justice have done. Accountability is a very big problem. The Garda must be accountable to us and they must, above all, be accountable to the people. In this regard I welcome the Bill being introduced by the Minister for Justice to ensure that a proper and adequate complaints procedure exists in so far as the public have complaints against the Garda. At one level that introduces the question of accountability. It is right that a procedure like that should be available and I compliment the Minister for making that procedure available. On another level it is important that we respect the discretion which a garda should have in discharging his or her duty. It is extremely important, in so far as accountability is concerned, that the discretion which a garda should be trained to have and which anybody admitted to the Garda should naturally have, is discharged in a reasonable way but also in a way that makes the Garda ultimately accountable to the public.
On the level of accountability in so far as the courts are concerned, it is also important that the manner in which defendants pass through the courts system from beginning to end should be made clear to the public as to what may happen somebody within the courts system. In that regard I draw the attention of the House to page 31 of the report which is the flow chart of the criminal justice system. It is a very helpful chart in relation to the District Court criminal jurisdiction indicating all the options, all the positions in which somebody who comes within the system may find himself at any time. That is something which should be got across. It should be a measure of the ultimate accountability of the courts to the public.
The third point from the quotation I read is that the system should allow for rational planning. I have already laid substantial emphasis on the question of statistics at the commencement of my contribution to the debate. It is difficult to plan rationally for the criminal justice system when we do not have proper statistics. To plan for the future we must ensure that the statistical data is available at all levels; secondly, we must ensure that our judges meet, by statutory obligation, on a regular basis; and, thirdly, we must ensure that the Garda are properly trained — at senior level in particular — for the job which they have to take on.
The first page of chapter one of the report makes interesting reading when it refers to the development of the crime problem. It gives interesting statistics in relation to robberies, and I quote:
There were 55 robberies in 1932; 43 in 1942; 23 in 1952; and 39 in 1962.
Then in the mid-sixties a fundamental change took place, evident in the 622 robberies of which the Garda were aware in 1972, and more evident still in the 1,883 robberies entered in the 1982 crime statistics. The number of gardaí has been increasing dramatically. In 1951 we had 6,904 gardaí stationed in 810 stations; in 1961 we had 6,612 gardaí in 758 stations; in 1971 we had 6,612 gardaí in 697 stations; in 1981 we had 9,722 gardaí in 700 stations and now we have approximately 12,000 gardaí.
The report makes a valid point that increasing the number of gardaí is not necessarily going to decrease the level of crime; it may decrease the level of certain types of criminal activity. The question has to be asked: are our gardaí being properly deployed? One of the problems facing us is the fact that they are not. I raised last year in the House the question of the accountability of the gardaí to the people that they serve following a spate of rural robberies, and the fact that so many of our gardaí do not live in the area they serve, including many of our superintendents who are fly-by-night people, people who arrive on Monday morning with their lunch baskets and leave again on Friday evening for Dublin or Cork. At that time the then chief superintendent of County Mayo expressed horror at my allegation that five out of the seven garda officers lived outside the county, most of them in Cork or Dublin. He, of course, said that he lived in the county. He claimed this by virtue of the fact that he had a flat there where he stayed during the week, but he lived elsewhere.
If the gardaí are to be effective they must live in the area they serve. I have asked the Minister for Justice on numerous occasions to ensure that there is a statutory obligation on every garda to live in the area for which he is responsible. As politicians, we are aware that there are hundreds and hundreds of people trying to join the Garda and if that minimal requirement, which is, for instance, imposed on a community welfare officer, cannot be imposed on the gardaí, then they should be asked to resign from their positions. In so far as the more senior ranks of the Garda are concerned, there should be a much keener scrutinty of the administrative ability of the people who achieve superintendent or chief superintendent rank. It is not evident from my experience of the Garda officers appointed to the more senior ranks that they have that ability. It is important that the Garda achieve a better sense of public relations by developing the ability to deal with people on a personal level. The Garda are, increasingly, failing in that task. We can increase the number of gardaí but we are achieving little unless we ensure that they live in their areas, that they have a closer relationship with the people they serve and, above all, that they have a better PR sense.
I should now like to refer to the criminal courts. The report is scathing in regard to the manner in which records are kept in the criminal courts. It is important that a number of things emerge from the criminal court records. First, there should be definite statistics of the indirect monitoring by the courts of criminals — for example, cases that are adjourned or adjourned generally to allow the courts to review in an indirect way the performance of a particular defendant. Secondly, there should be specific statistics as to the success or otherwise of the community work scheme. Thirdly, there should be definite figures available dealing with the court welfare service, which is doing a very good job.
In conclusion, I see the criminal justice system as being basic to our society. The question of accountability is what must be determined. The central issue which the report brings up is the fact that by virtue of the basis of the operation of the system it is difficult to determine that accountability. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Department introduces the necessary disciplines in the Garda and within the court system to ensure the kind of accountability which will allow us in both Houses to evaluate the success or otherwise of the system. I ask her to see to it that those disciplines and systems are introduced.
