I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and her officials.
SECTION 1
Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2011: Committee Stage.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 12, to delete "Law Reform" and substitute "Equality".
It is an early start but I hope we can deal with this quickly as it is a small Bill. There was virtually unanimous support for it on Second Stage in the House so I am assuming there will be no major objections to it now. Of course, that assumption could be a step too far.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are technical amendments. When the Bill was introduced on 16 March the ministerial title was Minister for Justice and Law Reform. On 2 April 2011, Statutory Instrument 138 altered the name of the Department and the title of the Minister to the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister for Justice and Equality, respectively. This amendment makes the required change to the ministerial title in the Bill.
Amendment No. 2 is also a technical amendment and clarifies that the amendment in section 2 of the Bill to section 1 of the Principal Act is to subsection (1). It is a technical amendment altering the title of the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 15, after "amended" to insert ", in subsection (1),".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 be discussed together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
" ‘probation officer' means a person appointed by the Minister to be a probation officer;".
Again, these are technical amendments relating to the definition of probation officer.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, to delete lines 28 to 32 and substitute the following:
"(b) the deletion of the definition of “probation and welfare officer”, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(c) Where a court, by or before which an offender stands convicted, is of the opinion that the appropriate sentence in respect of the offence of which the offender is convicted would, but for this Act, be one of imprisonment of more than 1 year and where a court decides not to make a community service order in relation to said offender, then a court shall provide a written reason to explain the reason for not making a community service order.”,”.
One of the reasons I tabled this amendment is that the purpose of this Bill is to make it easier for judges to consider imposing community service orders. In my experience of the courts system, while I do not wish to say that judges are sometimes lazy, they take the letter of the law very seriously, as they should. However, I believe this is something we should consider. Where somebody receives a prison sentence rather than a community service order, the judge should outline the reasons for not imposing a community service order. The purpose of the Bill is to encourage them to consider community service orders, CSOs, rather than prison sentences, so it is important that some explanation be given in such cases.
I understand the Deputy's reason for the amendment but this Bill obliges the judge to consider a community service order. The Bill does what the Deputy is proposing. The amendment would have consequential effects in that judges would be explaining a negative, that is, why they did not do something as opposed to why they should do it. In addition, the amendment is not seeking an explanation of the sentence but an explanation of why the judge did not consider a community service order when, in fact, the Bill provides that the judge must consider a community service order. It also creates a differential between sentences. If I accepted the amendment, which I do not intend to do, the judge would have to do what the Deputy proposes in the case of a sentence of more than 12 months but does not impose that requirement in the case of sentences of 12 months and less, which is what the legislation is about. To accept the amendment would create a division in the courts and a huge imposition. In most court cases the judge reads out the judgment and gives legitimate reasons for imposing the particular sentence. The amendment would not have the effect the Deputy intends. In fact, it would have a negative effect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(iv) having considered a victim impact statement prepared by the victim of a crime, where applicable, if said victim so wishes to furnish such statement,".
This amendment relates to the issue of victim impact statements, which was raised with me during the debate on Second Stage. I have used the phrase "where applicable" because in some cases it will not be applicable. It will only apply if the victim wishes to furnish a statement on a crime. If somebody receives a CSO, the probation officer will draw up a report anyway. If a victim of a crime wishes to furnish an impact statement as part of that report, there should be some mechanism for them to do so.
I appreciate the Deputy's point but, unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment because of the very specific categories of crime for which victim impact statements are allowed. The victim must approach the judge or request that he or she be allowed to give either evidence or a victim impact statement in court. Where the judge agrees - there is no discretion either in chambers or in open court - that will be done.
We are all in agreement that the aim of this Bill is to move people more quickly through the justice system and deal with them in a fairer manner. We also agree that there are too many people in jail who should not be there. If I were to accept the Deputy's amendment, which I do not propose to do, it would be possible for everyone to provide a victim impact statement, which would take forever and a day to deal with in court. Currently, victim impact statements are taken in the case of specific offences, such as sexual offences, violence or a threat of violence to a person, or offences under the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, which clearly do have an impact on the victim in either the short or the long term or into the foreseeable future. In such cases the victim has a right to be heard. I do not think the Deputy's amendment would bring us any further along the line, particularly in view of the fact that we are talking about the imposition of sentences of 12 months or less in the District Court and that the judge is obliged anyway to consider community service orders. We are not talking about the high end of crime here.
I know.
How stands the amendment?
I am willing to withdraw it. I am not surprised that none of our amendments was passed. We are learning fast here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
7.—Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended, in subsection (1)(b), by the substitution of “the offender to a sitting of the District Court in that other district or to a sitting of” for “the offender to the District Court in that other district or to”.”.
This amendment introduces a new section to the Bill which will amend section 8 of the principal Act. That section provides an alternative method of dealing with the offence of failing to comply with the requirements of a community service order. In effect, section 8 allows for an offender who so fails to comply with such requirements, where the community service order was made in a District Court sitting in an area other than the district of residence, or by another court, to be remanded to that other court and to be dealt with in the manner set out in section 8(2) of the principal Act. This is a technical amendment which needs to be made, and as we are dealing with this Bill we propose to tidy up other Acts in the process.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, lines 21 to 24, to delete all words from and including "another" in line 21 down to and including "with", where it secondly occurs, in line 24 and substitute the following:
"another court, remand the offender to a sitting of the District Court in that other district court district or to a sitting of the Circuit Court in that other circuit, as the case may be, or to a sitting of that other court to be dealt with in accordance with".
This amendment will ensure that when people are being remanded they will be remanded to a sitting of a particular court, which is not the case under the principal Act. Up to now persons were remanded to the District Court; now they will be remanded to a sitting of the District Court.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I thank the Minister of State and her officials for attending.
Bill reported with amendments.