asked the Minister for Justice if he has any proposals to review the criminal law and the operation of the courts with a view to ensuring consistency in sentencing by the judiciary.
24.
Written Answers. - Imposition of Penalties.
16.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will indicate what steps he proposes to take to ensure consistency as between sentences following convictions under the Road Traffic Acts particularly in relation to cases where the driver is under the influence of alcohol.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 24 together. There is a variety of factors which must be taken into account by a court in deciding on the appropriate sentence in a particular case. Since these factors will vary from case to case it is inevitable that there will be differences in sentences even in cases which, on the face of it, seem similar.
Nevertheless I accept that there is a public perception that there is disparity in sentencing practice. In so far as this may be so, I take the view that it is the Judiciary itself which is the appropriate body to assess it. I do not think that legislation can provide an answer to criticisms of inconsistency in the imposition of penalties.
There is formal machinery for consultation among Justices of the District Court (where the majority of criminal charges are dealt with). Section 36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, provides for the convening by the President of the District Court of meetings of Justices to discuss matters relating to the discharge of the business of that Court including "such matters as the avoidance of undue divergences in the exercise of their jurisdiction, and the general levels of fines and other penalties." While there is no similar statutory provision for the higher courts there is nothing to prevent the Presidents of these courts from convening meetings for the same purpose.