Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 May 2001

Vol. 536 No. 4

Written Answers. - Courts Service.

Gay Mitchell

Ceist:

188 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will consult the Attorney General, and if appropriate, the presidents of the District, Circuit and High Courts, regarding the concerns raised by a person (details supplied) in Dublin 1 regarding sentencing policy in serious drugs offence cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14344/01]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that, given that the courts are independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, it would be inappropriate for me, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to intervene in or comment on sentences imposed by them.

I am however, concerned to ensure that adequate sentences are available under the law to deter drug trafficking. In this regard, I have provided in section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, for the creation of a new offence related to the possession of drugs with a value of £10,000 or more for the purpose of sale or supply. Section 5 provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment as well as for a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. According to section 5, a court should not apply the mandatory minimum sentence where it is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to impose the minimum 10 years sentence. Factors to which the court may have regard include whether the person pleaded guilty, taking account of the stage at which such an intention was indicated and the circumstances surrounding the indication, and whether the person materially assisted the investigation of the offence.

The operation of the Act is being kept under review.

Our legal system generally provides for the imposition of maximum penalties for criminal offences. The law permits the judge to exercise his or her discretion, within the maximum penalty, by reference to the conclusions he-she has reached after trying the case, hearing all the evidence and assessing the culpability and circumstances of the accused. It is important to mention the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, which provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions may apply to the court for a review of what appears to the Director, to be an unduly lenient sentence.

The complex question of sentencing policy was addressed at length by the Law Reform Commission which specifically recommended against the introduction of statutory sentencing guidelines. The report of the Commission illustrated a number of differences of opinion among members in relation to some of the recommendations in the report, which highlights the obvious complexities which arise in relation to sentencing policy.

The Courts and Courts Officers Act, 1995, enables me, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to provide funds for judicial train ing courses arranged by the judiciary. Some £250,000 has been made available, during 2001, to the Judicial Studies Institute which was established by the Chief Justice for the purpose of judicial training. I understand that the issue of sentencing has been examined by the Institute in the context of its training programme.

Section 36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, provides for meetings of District Court Judges to discuss,inter alia, the avoidance of undue divergence in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court and the general level of fines and penalties. While there is no similar provision in the case of other Courts, I understand that they hold similar meetings.

The report of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, December, 2000, recommended that a Judicial Council be established on a statutory basis, within which, the Judicial Studies Committee should undertake responsibility for the establishment of a sentencing information system similar to that in existence in New South Wales, Australia.