Vol. 452 No. 7
6 Mr. L. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Justice if she will introduce legislation to enable the Director of Public Prosecution's Office to charge criminals who use syringes when carrying out their criminal activities in the same manner as those criminals who use guns in view of the fact that they both intend to endanger life; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7667/95]
I share the concern of Members of this House and the general public about the way in which syringes are being used as weapons of crime. Attacks made with syringes are deeply distressing for a victim who is faced with the threat of being infected with HIV or some other serious disease. The main provisions of our criminal law which can be invoked against persons who use syringes in connection with the commission of criminal offences are contained in the Larceny Act, 1916, and the Firearms and Offensive weapons Act, 1990. Section 23 of the 1916 Larceny Act, as substituted by the criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, provides that a person is guilty of robbery if he or she steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he or she uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The maximum penalty for the offence of robbery is imprisonment for life.
Part III of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990, provides for a wide range of offences relating to offensive weapons. Many of these offences apply in the case of the carrying and use of syringes for criminal purposes. In particular, section 10 of the Act states that a person who is on any premises as a trespasser is guilty of an offence if he or she is in possession of any weapon of offence. For that purpose a weapon of offence is defined to include any article intended by the person having it to cause injury to or to incapacitate another person. In addition, section 11 of the 1990 Act provides that a person commits an offence if, while committing an offence, he or she produces, in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person, any article capable of inflicting serious injury. A person who is convicted of an offence under section 10 or section 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to five years.
Our law, therefore, already provides for the imposition of heavy penalties on a person who threatens, or may threaten, others with a syringe in the course of committing a robbery or another offence. I am, of course, keeping the law in this area under review and if any additional legislative measures are needed I will bring forward appropriate proposals.
When referring to syringes and needles the Minister did not say the use of these items endangers life. Will she accept that the use of blood-filled syringes endanger life in the same way as would a dagger or gun, and that there is an urgent need to review legislation to take account of that? Will she also accept that people fear blood-filled syringes and needles more than they fear a loaded gun because they know they may be killed instantly from a loaded gun whereas with the use of a blood-filled syringe may sentence them to death over a two, three four or five year period? The point I am making is that the public have a deep fear of the use of syringes as offensive weapons.
I again confirm that, under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act and the Larceny Act, people have been convicted of carrying and using syringes as offensive weapons. The law has been used effectively in that regard. A robbery offence which can attract a life sentence applies to any case where property is stolen with the use or threat of force. A person holding a syringe as an offensive weapon has been found to be using that threat of force. As I said earlier to Deputy O'Donoghue, one of the Bills I am preparing in response to recommendations of the Law Reform Commission deals with non-fatal offences against the person. The Deputy said that the law as it stands cannot be used effectively to deal with such offences, but it has. However, I will keep an open mind as to whether it requires strengthening. I know the point the Deputy is making that holding a syringe while committing a robbery is a threat of force and can be used in evidence against the offender.
I accept what the Minister said as the factual position but will she accept that this category of crime is increasing, particularly in the Dublin area? The Minister and I represent neighbouring constituencies and I am sure she accepts that there is a serious increase in such crime in our constituencies, particularly in urban areas. Will she accept also that the extent of unreported incidents is increasing? I cite the example of people challenged on street corners who are robbed by thugs but who are relieved to get out of danger and do not want to subject themselves to the further inconvenience — although I could use a stronger word — of having to formally report a crime and go through the formal procedures. Will the Minister accept that such crime, as well as being serious, is increasing in Dublin?
The Deputy made the point adequately.
I accept it is a heinous crime. As the Deputy said, in many instances people who have been subjected to an attack or a threatened attack by a person holding a syringe suffer greater fear and longer-term effects than those subjected to an attack not involving such a threat. Regarding the type of offences to which the Deputy referred, it is an offence to intimidate a person with a syringe and a prosecution can be taken on that basis, one does not have to be stabbed with the syringe. Any improvement in the law to ensure that type of action is treated in the most serious way under our criminal laws would be welcome, but I confirm that the law as it stands has been effectively used to deal with this type of crime.
May I ask a brief question?
A number of Deputies are offering and I wish to facilitate them. Perhaps they will be brief and relevant. I call Deputy O'Donoghue.
Since it would be extremely difficult to make it an offence to carry a syringe as doctors, veterinary surgeons etc., carry them, will the Minister accept that the easiest and best manner of resolving this problem is to make the consumption of a controlled substance a criminal offence?
That is a different question. I am answering one about methods by which we can control the use of and effectively prosecute people using syringes. I told Deputies that the law as it stands allows for that type of prosecution and I support extension of the law to deal adequately with such crimes. As Deputy O'Donoghue said, the law does not prevent a diabetic or a doctor from carrying a syringe and that is one of the difficulties that would have to be taken into consideration in drafting future legislation.
Will the Minister agree it is reasonable to conclude that persons who use a syringe in such attacks would probably be heroin addicts? As there are 6,000 heroin addicts in Dublin and only 400 receive treatment, will she agree it would be far more appropriate if the Minister of State in the Departments of Health and Justice got together to introduce a methadone maintenance programme throughout the city and in other urban centres?
We are dealing with the use of syringes. I call Deputy Sargent who has been offering for some time.
Will the Minister reconsider the need to amend or introduce legislation to deal with the use of any article intended to cause injury to another which she said included a syringe? I wonder if, in practice, the Director of Public Prosecutions is clear in his thinking about the type of articles referred to and whether a syringe or a stolen car equate with a gun?
Can we have relevant questions please?
Will the Minister articulate more clearly the need to realise that the word "article" is extremely broad and to list the possible objects which could be considered articles for the benefit of the Director of Public Prosecutions and others interested in such cases? Syringes, cars and quite a number of other things are used in crime. Is it true that the use of stolen cars only constitutes dangerous driving rather than a threat to life? I hope the Minister will consider those matters.
We are not dealing with stolen cars, we are dealing with the use of syringes.
I confirm that a syringe or hypodermic needle is termed an offensive weapon under the terms of this legislation when used as an intimidatory object and a method of force.
The question was not raised before I entered the House.
Will the Minister agree that the use of a syringe, irrespective of whether its contents are HIV positive, constitutes attempted murder, not merely attempted robbery, and should be treated as such? The Minister quoted that a five years' maximum sentence applies to such an offence——
It can be life imprisonment.
——or life imprisonment which can be eight to 12 years with remission. If an offender is HIV positive, and uses a contaminated syringe, it constitutes a death sentence for the victim. Will the Minister agree that there should be a separate offence of attempted murder in such cases rather than attempted robbery?
I clarify that section 23 of the Larceny Act provides for the offence of robbery which would include stealing with the use of a syringe. A person convicted of that offence can be sentenced to life imprisonment. The offences to which I referred cover the position where a person is intimidated by another holding a syringe, but not where he or she is stabbed with it. If the person is stabbed with the syringe, the attacker can be charged with unlawful wounding under section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861, or, perhaps, as requested by the Deputy, attempted murder. Both those offences can attract a sentence of life imprisonment. That penalty is allowable depending on the charge.
Even if a syringe is not used in an attack the mere threat of it is more dangerous and frightening than a gun. That is why I ask the Minister to consider stepping up the penalties for robbery offences involving the use of a syringe, the most heinous of all crimes.
That has been dealt with adequately.
If the Minister accepts the problem is increasing — I am sure she has been in communication with the Garda Síochána about it — certainly on the north side of Dublin city, will she also accept there is something wrong with the relevant legislation or with judicial decisions relating thereto?
I do not have figures for the number of intimidatory attacks with syringes. I can assure Deputy Fitzgerald that I am as concerned as he at the increasing use of syringes as offensive weapons. As all Members said to be threatened with a syringe, without knowledge of its contents, must be the most terrifying experience. Any updating of the law required will be undertaken. While I am satisfied that existing laws can and have been used effectively in examining the non-fatal offences against the person legislation, which I hope to introduce in the House later this year, I will re-examine this matter.
