I move amendment No. 12:
In page 11, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following
"(c) the insertion of the following section:
23B (1) Where the Government or the Minister exercise their powers of commutation or remission under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, the provisions of this section shall apply to the commutation and remission.
(2) The clerk or registrar of the court which imposed the punishment, and, also, where applicable, of the Court which confirmed or varied the sentence, shall be informed in writing of the commutation or remission.
(3) A notice in writing shall be inserted by the Minister or the Government in Iris Oifigiúil within 28 days of the making of the commutation or remission stating—
(a) the name of the person concerned,
(b) the court by which the punishment was imposed,
(c) the date on which the punishment was imposed,
(d) the nature of the commutation or remission.
(4) Where for special reason, the Minister is of the opinion that any of the provisions of subsection (3) should not be complied with, the Minister shall be at liberty to apply in camera to the Court mentioned in subsection (2) for an order dispensing with the requirements set out in subsection (3) or any of them, and the Court may, if it is satisfied that such dispensation would be consistent with the common good, direct accordingly.'.".
Section 12 of this Bill makes a slight technical change to section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951. I believe this is an opportunity to examine the operation of that power of remission of sentence which is currently bestowed on the Minister. The Minister's amendment, by way of this Bill, does not achieve any substantive change to the current system of petitions and remissions of fines and sentences. It will be recalled that in Brennan v. The Minister for Justice, a recent case, the High Court expressed concern that the power to remit sentences was being exercised as a parallel or alternative system of justice. The High Court also warned that the Minister should only exercise this power in very exceptional cases, in circumstances where she believed the judge’s decision to be wholly insupportable. Whereas this Bill makes a technical change to the 1951 Act, it does not address the issues which were criticised by the court and which formed the basis of that challenge to the Minister’s power.
My amendment seeks to introduce transparency in the use of this ministerial power by providing that, where a decision has been made to remit or commute a sentence or fine, the court which imposed it originally should be consulted and the name of the person concerned and the fact of the remission be on the public record by publication in Iris Oifigiúil. It would introduce transparency and some level of record into this process. It is something which I put forward in an earlier Bill and I would welcome the Minister’s response to this attempt to make the system more transparent, given that it has been the subject of criticism in the High Court case in which the court ruled against the Minister’s use of the power. What new changes have been introduced since the handing down of that decision to meet the criticisms levelled against the use of the power by the court?