Gay Mitchell
Ceist:1 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice if she has any plans to provide for the confiscation of assets of convicted criminals or the attachment of income in court proceedings where fines would normally follow conviction.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Payment of Fines.
Mary Harney
Ceist:3 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Justice the plans, if any, she has to change the law which allows for the use of imprisonment in cases of wilful refusal to pay a court order for payment of money, in the light of the recent concerns expressed by the UN Committee on Human Rights; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Jim Mitchell
Ceist:12 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice if any measures are planned to update the scale of fines.
Ivan Yates
Ceist:19 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Justice the arrangements or plans, if any, that have been made for the payment of fines by instalments; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 3, 12 and 19 together.
The question of providing alternatives to imprisonment in cases of non-payment of fines or debts is under consideration in my Department and any proposals which may emerge will, of course, be announced in the normal way. It is fair to say that a certain amount of confusion surrounds public discussion of this issue and it might be helpful if I were to outline briefly the current position and give a general indication of the type of proposals which I have under consideration.
In the case of imprisonment for non-payment of debt — which I understand is the area which primarily gave rise to the concerns expressed by the United Nations Committee on Human Rights referred to by Deputy Harney — it is important to emphasise that no person may simply be committed to prison merely for the non-payment of a civil debt. Committal usually takes place only after all other avenues to enforce the debt have been exhausted. Under our law a debtor may be committed to prison only for failure to comply with a court order to make payments in discharge of a debt and such an order may be made only after examination of means designed to establish that the debtor is, in fact, financially in a position to make those payments. Accordingly, it is only those who are judged to have the capacity to make payments but who refuse to do so — rather than those who are simply financially unable to make the payments — who may be committed to prison.
Equally, in the case of non-payment of fines, it is worth mentioning that there is an obligation on the courts when imposing a fine to take into account the means of the offender.
The actual number of prison places occupied at any given time by people committed for non-payment of debt or fines tends to fluctuate at between 1 and 2 per cent of the total prison population. It would be wrong to suggest, therefore, that people in this category contribute in a major way to pressure on prison accommodation.
Nevertheless, I recognise that if appropriate and effective alternatives to imprisonment can be devised in these circumstances it would be well worthwhile proceeding with these. It is in that context that I should mention two proposals which I have under consideration.
The first relates to the use of community service as an alternative to imprisonment for non-payment of fines. However, whatever about the merits of this approach in relation to non-payment of fines, I do not believe that it would be appropriate in the case of non-payment of debt. In debt cases there is a third party to whom money is owed and one of the purposes of imprisonment in those cases is to attempt to bring about — as often happens — settlement of the debt.
In relation to non-payment of both debts and fines I am considering the introduction of a system of attachment of earnings whereby the court could order that outstanding debts or fines be deducted from a person's earnings. This would represent a form of instalment system for the payment of fines. Instalment orders are already a feature in relation to debt inasmuch as the court may order payment of the amount due to the creditor by instalments. As to the question of introducing a system of payment of fines by instalment beyond that envisaged in an attachment of earnings scheme, this matter is also under consideration in the context of the general review which I have under way in this area. That review is in line with the Programme for a Partnership Government which contains a commitment to revise the law relating to fines and, in particular, to provide for their indexation which would allow for updating the scale of fines. I propose to bring forward legislative proposals as quickly as possible in the light of the outcome of that review.
Finally, as to the part of Deputy Mitchell's question dealing with confiscation of assets where fines would normally follow conviction, I intend to bring forward legislation shortly dealing with confiscation of assets which represent the proceeds of crime. However, as part of the approach we propose to take there would not be a question of substituting confiscation for a fine. Confiscation proceedings would be designed to deprive a criminal of the actual proceeds of crime and arise only after a person had been convicted and sentenced.
Is the Minister aware that there are many countries around the world where gross national product in illegal drugs exceeds the whole of GNP in respect of normal products, that those countries are flooding the world with these drugs, thereby corrupting people who are making large amounts of money from crime and using that money to compete with the legitimate community? In that regard, would the Minister tell the House why it is taking so long to bring forward the long-promised legislation to confiscate assets gained in such circumstances and in similar criminal circumstances since this promise has been before the House for some considerable time?
I can only answer for my period as Minister for Justice and, as the Deputy is aware, I have been in that Department for only a little more than ten months. In that period, we have seen a legislative reform programme in the criminal law area which probably was not equalled for some time prior to that. As part of that legislative programme I will be introducing a Bill in this session to deal with confiscation of the proceeds of crime. That Bill will be published within a month.
In relation to the second part of my Question No. 1, regarding the attachment of income in court proceedings and also in relation to the other question which has been taken with it, is the Minister aware that in a previous reply to me she stated that 12 per cent of all committals to prisons are for non-payment of fines. In fact, the Whitaker report puts the figure much higher but even if we are to accept the figures at face value and although 1 to 2 per cent of the prison population at any given time may be there for non-payment of fines, the whole system is being clogged up by the 12 per cent who do not pay their fines. They are brought through the judicial system to the stage where they are sent to prison. In those circumstances, rather than simply provide for fines in legislation here, would the Minister ensure that we provide for the collection of those fines, whether by instalments or attachment, but also, in some circumstances, by the confiscation of assets equal to the amount of the fine.
In the original reply I answered on the basis that I was proposing a system of attachment of earnings and that I was considering a system of payment by instalments. Committal takes place only after every other avenue has been exhausted and while the Deputy is correct that approximately 12 per cent of all committals are for non-payment of fines, it is important to stress that because the figure is 12 per cent, the general assumption is that 12 per cent of the prison population are in prison for non-payment of fines. As we know, that is not true. The figure is between 1 and 2 per cent.
I accept that one of the reasons the court system is being clogged up is because of this procedure but people are entitled to go through the courts system. To deprive them of that would be wrong and I do not believe that is what Deputy Mitchell is suggesting. All of the other avenues that he and others, as well as myself, have been suggesting are part of the overall package that I propose to bring forward.
I cannot remain unduly long on these questions by reason of our need to dispose of the remaining questions.
Surely the judge should make provision for collection at the point of sentencing rather than having this 12 per cent of committals clogging up the system. If people do not pay the fine, they should be in default and there should be an attachment of earnings for the appropriate amount of the fine.
As the Deputy is aware the Law Reform Commission has a position paper in relation to sentencing policy. I am looking forward to its final report because it has made many recommendations based on what Deputy Mitchell and all of us have been discussing in this House for a number of months. It would be my intention that as soon as that report is published, whatever changes in the law are required as a result of it will be implemented immediately. I believe the Judiciary will find the recommendations in that report helpful.