asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the very considerable discrepancies which exist between sentences passed by different district and other courts for the same or closely similar offences; and if he will review this question of sentences with a view to introducing machinery to ensure a reasonable degree of uniformity in sentences.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Court Sentences.
41.
The Government's concern in relation to the avoidance of undue divergencies of penalties imposed by the courts for criminal offences of marked similarity was reflected in the enactment of section 36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961: this section enabled the Justices of the District Court to come together periodically, at State expense, to discuss amongst themselves the question of establishing a reasonable degree of uniformity in sentencing.
The undue divergence of penalties has been referred to on a number of occasions in this House, and in a general way, I have brought the concern of the Government and of Deputies to the notice of the judiciary.
As Deputies are aware, of course, all members of the judiciary are, subject to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and it is a matter of great public importance that their judicial independence should not be, or seem to be, impaired by any executive act. Within that context I am carefully considering what further steps might be taken in this matter.
Could the Minister say if the justices or the people to whom he has referred have an obligation to meet now and again to discuss any sentences or have they met recently?
They have an obligation to meet. They met quite recently. In fact, they met within the past fortnight.
Do they mix among the people at all?