I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on the speed with which this legislation was introduced. It is the first of a series of Bills the Minister intends to bring before both Houses so as to update and reform our criminal laws and this move will be welcomed by the community. I look forward to new provisions especially concerning loitering and order in public places, which could be included in the new legislation.
When I spoke in the House about the Kilkenny incest case I said I hoped that we would not just talk about it for an hour and then forget it. We have a responsibility to ensure we do not just pay lip service to the need for reforms highlighted by that case. I am pleased that this Bill is the second to come before the House since then. Unfortunately, this legislation will not affect judicial decisions already taken, but victims of past crimes may feel that their suffering has achieved something worthwhile.
The Minister referred to the Criminal Law (Rape) Acts, 1981 and 1990 and said they provided anonymity for the victim. I wish to inform the Minister and Minister of State that the media are arguing for a judicial review, to allow them appeal cases held in camera. This request does not apply solely to rape trials but to all cases held in camera. Victims should be kept foremost in mind if any changes are proposed in this matter.
I welcome changes whereby rape victims will be given copies of their statement and pre-trial consultations. Many victims of rape and incest have felt that it was they who were on trial. Female members of the garda are heavily involved in the prosecution of sex offenders and increased recruitment of women to the force means that more victims of sexual and violent assault will be dealt with sympathetically. That is not too say that complainants would not have been dealt with sympathetically by male gardaí, but complainants who are usually femle would feel more at ease with a female garda.
I welcome the fact that this legislation is easy to interpret and understand and that it is victim-oriented. At many public meetings I have attended fears have been expressed that victims are forgotten except as statistics; this legislation should restore public confidence in that regard. Faith in the criminal justice system had diminished to the point where victims felt there was no point in reporting a case because little was done for them at the end of the day.
Section 6 deals with payment of compensation and I have questions about this provision. The courts are authorised to require offenders to pay compensation to their victims for any injury or loss. Does this authorisation extend to parents of offenders as there have been calls to make parents accountable for the offences of their children? This part of the legislation could cause the Minister difficulty since if the perpetrator of an offence is incapable of paying compensation to the victim, this provision is weakened. Could the Minister say he intends to introduce a provision to make parents accountable for the crimes of their children?
This legislation differs slightly from the Criminal Justice Bill, 1992 in that in this Bill compensation for victims will be secured not by the victim but by a third party.
Section 8 deals with appeals of lenient sentences. I echo the sentiments of the Minister that we comment regularly on the apparent leniency of sentences. Probably this is so because such cases are highlighted in the media while the vast number of appropriate sentences go unnoticed. I would not like to suggest that the Judiciary are not competent to carry out their work but this provision is welcome, particularly in the light of the Lavinia Kerwick and Kilkenny incest cases. The Minister said this Bill will not affect sentences handed down before it comes into effect. I hope past victims will feel that highlighting their cases has been worthwhile.
The Minister referred to the judicial power to take guilty pleas and the offender's age and mental capacity into consideration. I know of a case where a father was sentenced and family members asked that the sentence be reduced. There is a case for harsh sentencing for serious crimes but there is also a case for taking family wishes into consideration. I support the right of judges to impose varied sentences. However, sentences which deviate considerably from the norm may need to be looked at.
It is correct that the time limit for bringing an appeal against the leniency of a sentence should be no more than 28 days. Could the Minister say on whose advice would a review of sentence be taken? Would the Director of Public Prosecutions do so or would the victim have to request the Director of Public Prosecutions to do so? Who decides that the sentence has been too lenient, the DPP or the victim's family? The Minister's approach to the legislation in section 2 in relation to unduly lenient sentencing is sensible. It would be sad if the legal process was impeded by cases being taken because it was felt that a sentence of six months to a year was too short or vice versa. Our laws should be sensibly drafted and enforceable.
Section 5 states that an impact assessment should be carried out on the victim, which is long overdue. It humanises our legislation by asking what has happened to the person since the crime was carried out. It is ludicrous that environmental impact studies have been carried out in relation to planning matters and yet, at this late stage, that we are only considering victim impact. We cannot comprehend the trauma experienced by the victims of crime and it is wrong for our system of justice to treat them in a cold, clinical way. The victim support group will probably feel that section 5 is a timely and welcome development.
Will the Minister explain how compensation will be dealt with in cases specifically referred to in this legislation? At present, the criminal courts can award compensation. Most of the people engaged in loitering and public disorder in the capital city are minors and the Minister will probably deal with this in other legislation. Although the thrust of the legislation in relation to compensation is good, will it be effective if a large number of problems, other than sexual abuse crimes which are specifically mentioned in this legislation, are created by minors? I referred previously to parental responsibility. Will there be an extension of the criminal justice system to make parents responsible for their children's behaviour? Gardaí have told me that in cases in which minors were involved, not alone did the parents not accept responsibility, they refused to go to the Garda station. How can we ensure that victims feel their case is being taken seriously and that there is justice if minors are perpetrating the crime and parents will not stand by them in court? Will provision be made for compensation to be paid in instalments and, if so, by what mechanism will this be done?
The change in the legislation which allows video recordings of evidence to be admissible at trial is welcome. The Minister mentions that a technical amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, may be necessary to remove any doubt as to whether a written deposition should also be taken in these cases. I urge the Minister to put the necessary technical amendments in place immediately because the use of video recordings would involve children and sexual abuse. It would be undesirable, indeed horrific, if having tried to make it as easy as possible for children and victims of sexual assault to make their case, we then insisted that they must make a written submission or deposition. We must do everything possible to ensure that children are not subjected to this procedure. If technical amendments are needed, I urge the Minister to introduce them immediately.
I welcome the increase from seven to 20 years' imprisonment as the maximum penalty for incest against a female person aged 15 years or over. The Minister also highlights the fact that there is — and always has been — a provision for a judge to impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for an offence against female persons under the age of 15 years and a penalty of seven year's imprisonment if the offence is against a person over 15 years. I also welcome the Minister's statement in relation to treatment for a female person who has been a victim of incest. Will the Minister state whether this legislation covers such crimes against a male minor? Sexual abuse is certainly not limited to women. Cases which affected young women have been discussed here in the past. However, I am quite sure that this is not solely the domain of young women and girls. Perhaps the Minister will reassure me that this part of the legislation covers crimes of sexual abuse against young boys as well as girls.
The Minister said that the existing law would have allowed for greater sentencing but, as I said, this was not the position. The unduly lenient sentences imposed in the two previous cases meant that the Minister had to take the initiative and ensure that the Judiciary knew that public opinion did not consider the sentencing appropriate. It is not our function to criticise the Judiciary but if the Minister had not taken the initiative the general populace would have felt that they had been badly let down. I am grateful that the Minister acted with such speed.
The Minister also said that treatment programmes for prisoners should be considered. In my submission on the Kilkenny case I made the point that locking up offenders and regarding it as treatment is an inappropriate way to deal with the crime. I also said that the Minister should give consideration to ensuring that treatment for victims should be on a statutory basis. As this legislation is very victim oriented I ask the Minister to consider doing so. There was a reference in both Houses to the fact that the rape crisis centres are severly underfunded. A number of Senators said that although the situation in Dublin is bad, there are areas throughout the country which do not have a rape crisis centre. I urge that treatment for both offender and victim should be on a statutory basis, then we will have put our money where our mouth is.
Arbour Hill prison has a good reputation for providing services for its inmates and these services should be extended to all places of detention. The Minister also said that she was looking at a number of constructive proposals which had been put forward in the Dáil.
With regard to the suggestion that the perpetrator of the crime should not be allowed to return to the house, that can be one of the conditions when granting bail. All too often, in the cases with which I am familiar and probably generally, the victim is removed from the home. I know this is done for his or her safety but the victim usually feels that he or she has done something wrong. If not, why would he or she be removed from their family? The safety of the victim is paramount but, because of the way our legislation is enacted at present, the victim is removed and the perpetrator is left in the home. Hence, there is a belief that the victim is penalised. I know the Minister is aware of this and that he will consider any suggestions which would ensure that the victim does not suffer any further and that the accused or convicted person is told to stay away from the victim's house.
Unfortunately, when an accused person has served their sentence, nothing can be done to keep them from the home environment or, indeed, the environment where the crime took place. I know of a woman and her children who left their home. It was not a case of sexual abuse but one of violence and, despite the fact that the woman had secured a barring order, her husband regularly arrived back at the house. The Garda could only contain the situation so, in frustration, she and her children left the home and went to England. Our legislation must protect people who are exposed to violent crime.
I welcome the fact that the legislation has been introduced so speedily. When I mentioned at a recent public meeting on law and order that the Minister would introduce the Criminal Justice Bill, the cynics in the audience said that it would never happen. The manner in which the Minister has approached her portfolio gives lie to that and the suggestion that crime is treated in a lenient fashion. The Minister is adamant that law and order will be a priority and I look forward to further reforming legislation.