Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Although short in length, the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2024 is very significant legislation. It addresses important constitutional infirmities in law that were recently identified by the High Court. The High Court ruled that a person who commits murder as a child but turns 18 years of age before he or she is sentenced cannot be subject to the mandatory life sentence for murder. The specific purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to disapply the mandatory life sentence for murder for those who age out, that is, turn 18 years old before sentencing. The changes I am introducing will ensure the courts have appropriate options available when sentencing in these cases, including the option to sentence the convicted person to life imprisonment. The courts will also have the option to sentence a convicted person to a determinate sentence.

I begin by outlining the background to the Bill and why there is a need for these urgent legislative amendments. In its judgment in the case of Amah and Musueni v. Ireland and others on 2 September, the High Court found that it was unconstitutional to impose the mandatory life sentence for murder on a person who committed the offence when he or she was still a child but was sentenced after his or her 18th birthday. The case was taken by two persons who were 17 when they were charged with murder but have turned 18 in the interim. If found guilty, they would be subject to a mandatory life sentence under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990. That Act provides for a mandatory life sentence of imprisonment for any person who commits murder.

Section 156 of the Children Act 2001, however, creates an exception to this for children, so the mandatory life sentence does not apply to children who are sentenced as children. The Act provides for a sentencing regime for children which allows the court to consider the child's age and maturity level at the time he or she committed the offence, even in the case of the heinous offence of murder.

The Legislature has recognised that a more nuanced approach to sentencing principles is appropriate where the offender is a child under the age of 18 years. His or her age and level of maturity may be taken into consideration by the sentencing court when determining the penalty to be imposed. In criminal justice proceedings, however, it is the date of the sentencing hearing that determines how offenders should be sentenced. This means that if a child happens to turn 18 before his or her sentencing date, he or she cannot benefit from the Children Act. Thus, under the current law, where an aged-out child offender is found guilty, he or she will automatically be sentenced to imprisonment for life on conviction for murder.

The High Court was clear that this unequal treatment of offenders who have committed a murder while children but are sentenced differently because of the date of sentencing is unconstitutional. The High Court held that to impose the mandatory life sentence on a child who "ages out" would be a breach of his or her rights under Article 40.1 of the Constitution because of this inequality compared with other children who commit the offence of murder. A child convicted of murder may receive a life sentence, whereas a child convicted of-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister, I am loath to interrupt you, but Members like to have copies when-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They do. I do not think copies have to be circulated but I can see if-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is normal practice.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will ask for that.

A child convicted of murder may receive a life sentence, whereas a child convicted of murder who has turned 18 must receive a life sentence. The practical effect of the High Court decision is that it will now be difficult to proceed with prosecutions in these types of cases, given the lack of clarity on what sentence can be imposed if the person is found guilty.

There is an urgency to these amendments as there are several murder trials scheduled over the coming months involving this cohort of aged-out children, including a sentencing hearing next month and two murder trials in November. Consequently, the Attorney General advised that legislative remedy is required as a matter of urgency.

At its Cabinet meeting on 10 September, the Government was informed that an appeal of the court's judgment was unlikely to succeed and agreed to proceed with drafting of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill to address the issues identified by the court. Given the significant implications if not addressed quickly, the justice committee, which I thank for this, agreed to waive pre-legislative scrutiny and the Government approved publication of the Bill before the House on 18 September. It will commence on enactment.

Let me turn to the Bill itself and outline what is proposed in order to address the issue identified by the High Court. The Bill comprises five sections. Section 1 is a standard provision for definitions of terms used throughout the Bill. The Criminal Justice Act 1990 has been defined as the Act of 1990.

Section 2 amends section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990, which provides for the mandatory life sentence for murder. The section acts to disapply the mandatory life sentence for murder. This will apply only to children who commit murder when they are under the age of 18 but turn 18 before or on the day of sentencing. The section does not stipulate a sentence which must be imposed on any aged-out child who has been convicted of murder. By not providing for any sentence for aged-out children, sentencing will default to the common law powers and the court will be able to impose any appropriate sentence. This means that, for aged-out children, judges will have discretion as to whether to hand down a life sentence or a determinate sentence. This approach is the most comparable to how a non-aged-out child would be sentenced and therefore ensures the two cohorts are treated the same.

Section 3 amends section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990. Section 4 mandates a minimum custodial period for those sentenced for treason, capital murder or attempts to commit such murders, such as the murder of a member of An Garda Síochána or a prison officer. As this provision does not apply to children, it also needs to be disapplied for aged-out children in order to comply with the High Court judgment. Similar to the previous amendment, no minimum sentence for aged-out children has been stipulated in line with how non-aged-out children are treated if they are found guilty of this offence.

Section 4 inserts a new section 4A into the Criminal Justice Act 1990. This section will provide for the retrospective application of these amendments. Essentially, the amendments will apply in respect of offences committed before the date of the coming into operation of this Bill where final judgment has not been reached and all appeals exhausted. This is in line with advice received from the Attorney General and with domestic and European Court of Human Rights case law. It is necessary to give the Bill retrospective effect because we are dealing with cases where the offence has already been committed, and the aged-out children involved cannot now receive a mandatory life sentence for murder.

Section 5 provides for the Short Title, which is the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2024.

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill is limited to the issues identified by the High Court. The mandatory life sentence for murder will no longer apply to a person who committed the offence when he or she was under the age of 18. This complies with the constitutional guarantee of equality that the court found was deficient in respect of the differing treatment of juvenile offenders at the date of sentencing depending on their age at the time of the sentence. It also reflects the special considerations which apply in respect of criminal wrongdoing by child offenders who lack the intellectual, social and emotional understanding of adults. This Bill will complement proposals my Department is bringing forward with respect to necessary amendments to the Children Act 2001. The proposals outlined in the general scheme of the children (amendment) Bill 2024, which was published in July, arise from recommendations made in the Youth Justice Strategy 2021-2027. Both the provisions of this Bill and the proposed amendments to the Children Act have been developed to reflect the accepted standard that children are treated differently from adults by the criminal justice system. The approach taken in both pieces of legislation follows recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The committee has stated:

Juvenile justice systems should also extend protection to ... [children] who were below the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence but who turn 18 during the trial or ... [sentencing process].

I am grateful for the support of the House in progressing this urgent legislation to ensure that we have clarity in law for this most serious of cases. I look forward to Members' contributions in the course of the debate and would be happy to address any aspects of the legislation Deputies wish to raise not just today but subsequently. I commend the Bill to the House.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Minister. I do not wish to hammer the point, but Members are looking at me as regards copies of the speech. Such copies are very helpful, and this is significant legislation.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill will amend the Criminal Justice Act 1990 to disapply both the mandatory life sentence for murder and the minimum custodial period for capital murder for those who were under 18 at the time of the offence. We support legal certainty, which is absolutely necessary as regards sentencing, especially in cases involving the circumstances such as the case which led to this, where a gangland murder took place. There are wider issues as regards the coercion of children into criminal activity. I will deal with that later in my speech.

There are a number of concerning developments within the justice system that I would like to deal with. The first I would like to raise relates to an RTÉ investigation. According to Conn Corrigan, writing on the RTÉ website, GSOC has indicated that certain criminal convictions recorded over recent years in a District Court could be invalid. Given the potential scale of the issue, this is obviously a major concern. GSOC's investigation into the matter corroborated a complaint made by a whistleblower, with the substance of the issue relating to statutory declarations in court summonses. Such declarations are, of course, part and parcel of everyday court activities in civil and criminal cases. GSOC found that a specific station was using a replica of a peace commissioner's signature stamp when making these declarations-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, we are on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that, but you know yourself, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle - you do not always have an opportunity-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not, actually. We are on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that, but we are looking at a case where we could have convictions overturned and a huge amount of work that has been done-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are many ways of raising important issues.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, I think these are questions that relate to the Minister and I would like her to take the opportunity at a later stage to answer them and to tell us when she became aware and what can be done.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please. This is the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. As I said, we are in support of this. We see it as an absolute necessity from the point of view of ensuring certainty in sentencing. As I said previously, however, when we are talking about the coercion of children into criminal activity, we know that we do not have the tools that are necessary in dealing with this scenario at this point in time. The Government has spoken about a maximum sentence of five years for those who are involved in coercing children into crime. We think that would need to be looked at. We brought forward a Private Members' Bill that states such a sentence would need to be ten years. I understand that there are huge issues as to how one would go about actually proving this, and that needs to be looked at. Unfortunately, when at times we have still been using the same means of crime detection and trying to put away organised crime gangs, the fact is that they have been able to alter their operations. Half the time they have used young people and children in order to provide protection to those who run these criminal organisations, so we have absolutely failed to deal with that issue.

Anyone who has gone through any major housing estate in any town or city in Ireland realises there are communities that, at times, are absolutely under the cosh of some of these criminal gangs. There are streets and particular areas in which the drug dealer has a huge level of sway and in which kids have seen the really bad examples of normalised drug dealing for many years. The forces of the State do not have the tools, powers or capacity to be able to deal with this.

As much as we need to see the provisions of this Bill that go to rectifying an anomaly that was required to be fixed by the court, we need to look at the whole gamut when it comes to specifically dealing with gangland crime. I stated many times that an absolutely holistic approach is needed because we are talking about something which involves almost every Department, whether it is education, health, children or justice. We need to make sure we have those early interventions with those communities and families who absolutely require it. To not do so means we leave people to the justice they will not find from these criminal gangs. We will leave a situation and a circumstance in which people will find themselves within the criminal justice system at some point in time.

The problem is that it generally takes long. I have seen huge levels of work done by An Garda Síochána in dealing with particular criminals. It takes lengthy periods to put it through court. It could take three or four years. When a major criminal is dealt with, the street dealers at that point do not even know who he is because he is old news and of a different generation. That is something on which we have not, in any way, shape or form, got a grip.

We have had the Citizens’ Assembly and the Oireachtas committee. We are talking about decriminalisation and all these other particular issues. In the past week, the Irish College of General Practitioners and the Irish Pharmacy Union were before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Drugs Use. They spoke about their support for decriminalisation of the user, but also about the fact that we do not have the framework, the settings or those-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given great leeway to Deputy Ó Murchú.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the leeway the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has given me.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My leniency is-----

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On some level, there is general agreement on this legislation and the fact it fixes the legal issue. There is scope, however, for considerable sentences being issued where the Bill applies to an offender. We are not opposing the passage of the Bill at this point in time. There is, however, a considerable amount of work which needs to be done, particularly in that field that relates to gangland crime and beyond. The questions I put previously need to be answered.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As my colleague has explained, Sinn Féin will not be opposing the Bill, which will remove both the mandatory life sentence for murder and the minimum custodial period for capital murder for people who are under the age of 18 when they commit the offence. We support legal certainty in sentencing, particularly in cases such as the one that has resulted in this legislation and related to a gangland murder.

Fine Gael in government has had the justice portfolio for 13 years and still cannot get a handle on sentencing. Progress in this area has been slow, to say the least, leaving us with inconsistent sentencing. We have a major issue in this regard. In some communities, there are very young people committing heinous crimes. The coercion of children into crime is commonplace, particularly in drug gangs. Unfortunately, we saw this culture in Drogheda a few years ago when my town was terrorised by drug gangs, leading to devastation and death, including the murder of a child.

While the Minister, Deputy McEntee, has recently introduced laws criminalising the forcing or encouraging of a child to commit a crime, the maximum sentence is five years. We need to increase that if it is to have any meaningful effect whatsoever. We also need to stay on top of community Garda policing, alongside youth work, education and training and other community development. A Garda presence is required in certain communities in key areas. This has not happened in Drogheda under the Minister’s watch, despite all the promises throughout and after the feud. We need to stamp out this type of activity and keep it stamped out. Policing, community policing in particular, is central to that.

In recent weeks, the Minister indicated an intention to ban the wearing of masks at protests. Some of the scenes in recent months at protests at proposed accommodation centres for international protection applicants have been outrageous, violent and offensive. Rioting and violence are completely unacceptable in our society and we have laws to deal with that behaviour. Those responsible should be arrested and charged. We also have a long tradition of peaceful protest in this country, however. Every week, there are peaceful protests, whether they relate to the housing crisis, children with scoliosis being left on waiting lists, or Palestine. The list goes on. So many people in our society have to fight to access their rights. There is no denying, however, that the Government’s approach to dealing with the increased numbers of migrants has had disastrous consequences and caused upset for people.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I reminded the Deputy’s colleague, we are on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2024.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know but this is interlinked in some way.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am desperately trying to see it. I will show leniency.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will continue a bit more and perhaps the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will see the link. The Government’s approach has had disastrous consequences and has caused upset for people coming into the country seeking protection, as well as for people in local communities in some cases. The Government has approached the issue by throwing money at the situation, with millions of euro flowing from State coffers into the hands of wealthy property owners who are lining their pockets as a result of the crisis. It has always been the same approach when Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are in power - somehow, people with friends in high places manage to make a fortune out of a crisis. In this case, it is the privatisation of the immigration crisis and the lack of planning, consultation and thought on managing the emergency.

In some areas, this emergency beggars belief. In my home town of Drogheda, the town’s two hotels are now operating as accommodation centres.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2024.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As regards the ban, it relates to circumstances in which the wearing of a mask is intended to intimidate. I am not sure what is actually meant by that. It is obviously a completely subjective and meaningless test. There is a grey area regarding what constitutes a mask in the first instance. I have seen exemptions mentioned. Surely, anyone wanting to cover their face with a scarf or a medical mask can achieve the same effect without falling under the law. It is completely pointless. The Government is bringing in laws that mean nothing, cannot be effective, have no standing whatsoever and are not dealing with the crisis, namely, the accommodation crisis. As normal, even with this legislation, after having had the justice portfolio for 13 years Fine Gael in government is still trying to address issues not dealt with in the past and rectify its mistakes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputy. This is the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2024. This is Second Stage and we are talking about what is in the Bill or what should be put in the Bill.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill is a short one, brought forward in response to a recent High Court decision. It is not right or proper to discuss the circumstances of the case but, for clarity, the case revolves around a conflict between the mandatory sentence for murder applied to adults of 18 years and over. Section 156 of the 2001 Act states a child cannot be sentenced or committed to prison. This conflict was highlighted in a recent case in which the accused was convicted as a minor but turned 18 prior to sentencing, thus becoming liable for a mandatory life sentence. This showed a clear distinction based on age and violates constitutional equality rights under Article 40.1, according to the judgement of Mr. Justice Garret Simons. He made the point that although the current age of the offender does not diminish the culpability of the offender, the Legislature, having made a policy choice to exempt certain juvenile offenders from mandatory life sentence, should ensure it is reflected in legislation which complies with the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. We are the Legislature and we now have to address this conflict. The moral culpability of children for criminal offences is a difficult area, one that needs to be dealt with without hysteria.

It should be noted – Deputy Howlin's amendment makes this explicit – that it would of course be perfectly possible for a judge to sentence a person to whom this Bill applies to a very lengthy sentence, or one as long as, if not longer than, what life sentences end up being. We in Sinn Féin support legal certainty in sentencing, especially in cases involving circumstances such as these.

There are wider issues concerning the coercion of children into criminal activity. The Government's position is that the maximum sentence should be five years. We stated in our previous Private Members' proposal that the sentence should be 12 years. Clearly, there are issues if such serious crimes are being committed by minors. As with all crimes, the reasons are complex.

Deputy Munster mentioned the Garda. For a very long time in this Chamber, I have been asking the Minister for extra gardaí in my constituency, Kildare South. As far as I can see, crime is on the rise and we are doing nothing about it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister stated, this is very short, focused legislation to deal with the anomaly that has arisen on foot of the High Court case, one that was considered by the justice committee in light of an application by the Minister to waive pre-legislative scrutiny. I am not a member of the justice committee anymore, but waiving pre-legislative scrutiny is not something I am particularly enthusiastic about, even for short Bills. This is very impactive, important legislation dealing with cases of murder and therefore deserves a little teasing out and consideration here.

The High Court decision related to children who, as the Minister put it, age out subsequent to conviction but before sentencing. It is a matter of how they are to be dealt with. The High Court, in its judgment, determined that imposing a legal mandatory life sentence in such cases is not constitutional because it is not proportionate. The Government considered that, and it had two options, namely to accept the judgment of the court and legislate to deal with the issue that had arisen or to appeal the judgment. The Minister indicated that the advice of the Attorney General was that it would not be fruitful to appeal the judgment. Therefore, we have the Bill before us.

The purpose of the Bill is to disapply the mandatory life sentence for murder for those who commit the offence of murder when under the age of 18 but who attain the age of 18 before receiving a sentence for that very serious crime. In the Bill, people may still receive a life sentence, as I understand it, but it will no longer be a mandatory one. I saw the Bill last week and have tabled an amendment for tomorrow. It is not satisfactory that I am required to table an amendment before Second Stage of a Bill, but in order to clarify a question that arose in my mind and that of my legal adviser, I tabled an amendment to this Bill. That is why I was anxious to hear the Minister's speech. I believed the question would be addressed and that there would be no need for my amendment to be proceeded with. I now have a written copy of the Minister's speech.

The question that arose for me concerns the authority of the court in imposing a sentence on a person who has committed and been convicted of the crime of murder while under the age of 18 but who, on having reached that age, has not yet been sentenced. What and where is the statutory provision that enables the court in that instance to impose a sentence other than life imprisonment? That is my fundamental question for the Minister. I ask her to examine the legal framework within which cases of murder are dealt with.

With the indulgence of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to go back a bit. As I understand it, the Offences against the Person Act 1861 consolidated various rules of law with some amendments. Section 1 of the Act provides that whoever shall be convicted of murder shall suffer death as a felon. That remained the law in this State up to 1964, in which year the Oireachtas passed criminal justice legislation that made a distinction between what might be called ordinary murder and what it described as capital murder. In 1964, the death penalty was retained for capital murder for a small category of cases, including the murder of a garda, a prison officer or a foreign diplomat, and for certain other cases. Section 2 of the 1964 Act stated that a person who but for the Act would be liable to suffer death "shall be liable ... to penal servitude for life". That was the provision for murder under our law until the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1990, to come closer to today. The latter, as some might remember, abolished the death penalty for all practical purposes. Section 1 of the Act of 1990 provided, "No person shall suffer death for any offence." Section 2 states, "A person convicted of treason or murder shall [instead] be sentenced to imprisonment for life." The two differences between the law that existed from 1964 and the 1990 legislation are, first, that life imprisonment was substituted in the latter for the outdated concept of penal servitude for life and, second, that the distinction between capital murder and ordinary murder was ended in the latter. From 1990, all convictions of murder were to result in a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

Since 1990, the Children Act 2001 has been in place. Section 156 of that Act provides, quite rightly, that "No court shall pass a sentence of imprisonment on a child or commit a child to prison." Instead, an offence committed by a child is to be made the subject of a detention order under the Children Act.

The Bill proposes to amend section 2 of the 1990 Act. If this Bill is passed, section 2 of the 1990 Act will read that a person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The proposed subsection 2(2) to be inserted into the Act of 1990 states:

Subsection (1) shall not apply to the sentencing of a person convicted of murder who was under the age of 18 years when he or she committed the murder but has attained that age on or before the date of such sentencing.

If the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment does not apply to the aged-out child, what law applies? The Bill does not appear to state what legislation will give legislative authority to a court to impose any sentence in such a case.

On page 3 of the script the Minister circulated, it is stated that by not providing for any sentence for children who age out, sentencing will default to the common law powers and the court will be able to impose any appropriate sentence. As I understand it, the Minister's intention is to have no statute law and revert to common law in these cases. It is clear that the court has no power to deal with the kinds of cases in question under the Children Act because the offenders are no longer children. Where is the legislation that would enable the court to deal with them? I do not see how a court would rely on common law powers because common law powers and sentencing rules have not applied in cases of murder since at least 1860. Since then, the rules on sentencing for murder have been based on statute law.

Surely, we should not regress to a pre-1860 position. It would be better to legislate specifically to provide clear power and authority to a court to impose an appropriate sentence. I come back to the amendment that I tabled in advance. I tabled it not knowing what exactly would be contained in the Bill. I thought the Minister might be able to say that there is statutory authority in some legislation that I have not been able to find in the past couple of days.

I ask the Minister to reflect on this between now and tomorrow. My amendment would adjust section 2 of the Bill by inserting a new subsection (2)(b)(3) that would give specific authority to the court. My new subsection states: "In a case where subsection (1) does not apply by virtue of subsection (2), the court may impose such sentence or order as it considers appropriate." This would mean that in a case where it is not appropriate for a mandatory life sentence to be imposed because the person was under 18 years of age when the crime was committed, specific statutory powers would be available to the court to impose a sentence that it considers appropriate.

As stated, we are dealing with a fairly distinct and clear set of issues here. We have to deal with the High Court decision. It is probable that few in the House would disagree with the High Court decision that there should not be a mandatory life sentence imposed in respect of a crime that was committed by a child, even if the person legally becomes an adult subsequent to the conviction but before sentencing. Equally, and anybody who spoke previously on this has stated, we should try to provide clarity. I have some experience in terms of briefings from officials. The fact that it is not in the Bill currently will not, I hope, preclude the Minister from considering what I am suggesting in order to provide statutory authority as opposed to just reverting to common law authority. Rather than saying that the Government must defend what is being suggested, the Minister may say that there is some merit to the amendment and give consideration to it between now and tomorrow. I ask the Minister to do that.

In general, there is a great degree of wisdom in the decision of the High Court. It is right that the Legislature should address the issue and rather than appealing it, amend the law to provide for flexibility for a court, in the case of a so-called aged-out child, in order that it would, bearing all the circumstances in mind, be able to impose whatever is the appropriate sentence. The mandatory sentence would be ruled out, but any sentence, including life imprisonment, would be a possibility. If there is an issue between us, it is how that authority should be devolved to a court. The Minister states that it would revert to a situation that existed in the criminal law prior to 1860, namely that it would be a common law provision and the court would have the authority to impose a sentence. I am saying that we should make a clear statutory provision such that the court would, by law and by enactment of these Houses, have clear and specific authority to impose sentences that are appropriate in all relevant cases.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand what the Minister is seeking to do with this Bill. We support the objective behind the Bill in this case. The law in this area has to be changed because current practice has been deemed unconstitutional. All minors should be treated equally under the law when considering their age. That is a really important issue.

A couple of issues arise in the context of what is happening here. Some minors are involved in criminal activity and penalties relating to them do not arise until after they reach 18 years of age. The big question relates to why it takes so long for the criminal justice system to work. The Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, recently made a comparison between the criminal justice systems in Britain and Ireland. He stated that individuals in Britain who are involved in criminal activities are jailed within a matter of weeks, whereas in Ireland it can take a years for this to happen. The High Court decision came about as a result of the slow way in which the wheels of justice in this country turn. That is a significant problem. If we are honest about it, one of the main reasons for this is the lack of resources within the court system. There are not enough judges, barristers or gardaí within the system. This is leading to very slow decisions being made within the criminal justice system.

I do not want to see children criminalised at all. I want to see a situation where children are given every chance to reform their ways if they have been involved in criminal activity. Some children participate in criminal activity just through circumstances - often as a result of the fact that they come from disadvantaged backgrounds. If given the chance, many will go on to lead full and positive lives within society.

There has to be a cost for children involved in criminal activity. If there is no cost whatsoever, we are telling a lie to those children, namely that there is a consequence-free reality to their activity. A couple of months ago I held a public meeting in county Meath around the issue of crime and antisocial behaviour. A number of women attended the meeting and said that children are involved in stealing from their shops. When the women challenge them, the children say that if they go to the Garda, they will rape the women on their way home. That is obviously a very serious threat. As a result, some of the women are getting lifts to and from work. They cannot walk to work anymore for fear of that threat being fulfilled.

The criminal justice system needs to be able to deal with children who have been the subject of numerous convictions over time. There has to be a graduated penalty system in place to deter children from getting involved in crime, especially from the ages of 16 and 17. We know that in our communities, children are being used by criminal organisations to carry out actions because it is understood that they are almost immune from the type of convictions that apply to adults. We have to grapple with the issue of a graduated response to criminal activity for children who are 15, 16 and 17 years of age.

I concur with Deputy Howlin in relation to the gap in clarity this Bill potentially leaves regarding the law that will be used in cases of murder. A clear legislative response should be laid out in respect of children under the age of 18 who are involved in murder.

There are gaps around the issue of what we do in terms of penalties and how long people should spend in jail for their activities. We have a major problem when it comes to certain individuals who carry out grievous crimes and who do not receive custodial sentences for them. Obviously, there is a separation of powers. I will not mention any particular cases in this regard. However, there are individuals who have been brought to court for offences relating to hard-core child pornography - these people have really damaged others - and who received suspended sentences.

I know the Judicial Council is involved in creating advice for judges in terms of penalties and custodial sentences, but there needs to be speed in terms of making sure we have proper deterrents within law and within custodial sentences for those who participate in extreme, violent and grievous crime. We do not have that at the moment. Part of that comes down to the fact that every year, the Minister's staff select people who are in prison and take them out of prison because the prisons are overcrowded. In response to a parliamentary question I submitted, the Minister admitted that her staff release prisoners because prisons are overcrowded.

We want to do everything we can to divert children away from crime, but there has to come a point where children who are involved in grievous crime face a penalty, and that must mean a custodial sentence. Undoubtedly, one of the issues leading to the spike in murder and crime at the moment is the lack of gardaí. Every year that the Minister, Deputy McEntee, has been Minister for Justice, there has been a fall in the number of gardaí in the State.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not true.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every day, more and more gardaí are resigning and retiring. Every day, gardaí are being attacked in this country. There is a breakdown in the criminal justice system which is leading to a situation where some criminals feel they can get away with murder with impunity if necessary. That is a very serious issue.

I will repeat the core points on this issue. We certainly want to make sure children are not treated the same as adults in terms of grievous crimes. Children must be given opportunities to reform their ways and be diverted from the criminal justice system, but there is a weakness in this law in terms of how it sets out exactly how we are going to treat murder carried out by people under the age of 18. There is also a weakness in this Government's whole approach to children who have multiple convictions for serious crime and how we can have a penalty that at least pushes those children away from that type of activity and keeps citizens safe in this country.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am. I was at a briefing with the Ceann Comhairle. Interestingly, it was about the security of Members and staff.

I certainly want to comment on this situation. It is very important that we try to take all measures to protect all of our citizens, and not only Members of this House and whoever else. The situation is very bad at present. It has deteriorated rapidly under the Minister's watch. A lot of it, but not all of it, is down to the lack of gardaí.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to remind the Deputy that we are on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2024.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

There are a lot of amendments and changes that need to be made. Some of them are here, and some are missing. We can have all the amendments, Bills and legislation that we like, but we do not have basic numbers of members of An Garda Síochána. We should cut out the spin and the announcements of how many gardaí are being recruited because we all accept it has been more difficult to recruit gardaí to Templemore. We all accept that we must have people from diverse backgrounds and we have some of them, which is great to see. However, we must all accept the retirement situation and the situation regarding illness and injury. Unfortunately, we condemn any injury of a member of An Garda Síochána. Two excellent gardaí in the Cahir district are seriously injured at the moment as a result of violent attacks. That is reprehensible and totally unacceptable, but they should not have to visit dangerous people on their own with no backup. It is an alarming situation. All Members will find out, if they go canvassing in November as expected, or in January or February, that people are afraid in their homes and will not open the doors and gates. They have locked their gates and everything else. The people in the towns are afraid too. The situation is very concerning.

I raise the situation regarding the number of times that certain individuals - hundreds or thousands of them - get free legal aid. They get it repeatedly. There should be a "three strikes and out" approach. I know there is a right to innocence, a fair trial and a defence, but anyone who visits a court on a given day will see the same people at the same time. It is the same all over the country.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am loath to stop Deputy McGrath, but I have stopped a lot of TDs today. This Bill is about disapplying the mandatory life sentence for murder for minors. Please direct the discussion to the subject of the Bill.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course it is. We have seen the murder of members of An Garda Síochána and different people. Any murder, the taking of life, is the most heinous crime there is. Of course there should be mandatory sentences, and not a slipshod version of it - that is not a life sentence. Life should mean life because after all, somebody has taken another person's life. The situation regarding under-age people who commit murder is a huge issue as well. While there are measures in this Bill to deal with that, it is a very difficult and delicate area. The JLO system has operated, as we know, pretty well over the decades. When it comes to murder, as this Bill deals with, there is not really any room for a juvenile liaison officer, because at that stage it is too late and a life has been taken in violent circumstances. We must try to have early intervention in schools, in homes and in the community. No one wants to see a young person go wrong and commit heinous crimes. They are not born into this country to do that. It is heartbreaking for their family as well. We also need more intervention at an earlier level.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amending the Criminal Justice Act 1990 was always going to be a very difficult and tenuous thing to do because of what is involved. How we deal with young offenders - especially people who take the life of a person, even if the person taking that life is under 18 years of age - is obviously a very serious thing. The deterrents have to be in place. We have to highlight the fact that taking anybody's life in any circumstances, even when the person is of a young age themselves, cannot be mitigated. We have to ensure that the necessary strong deterrents are there. We obviously have to measure while recognising that when a person is under 18 years old, their decisions and choices can be affected by the prevalence of drugs and all the other influences that are there. We have to look at what has gone wrong with young people and in society. We have seen this recently in programmes that have been aired, which I am sure the Minister has watched and closely tuned into. We need not go to young people or people under 18 to see what is happening. When we see the hatred and bile that is building up in individuals, the way they are willing to unleash that on other people, the things they say and the abuse they hurl, we have to look at what is happening in society. We have to reclaim Ireland for people who just want to work, live their lives, pay their bills and do their best. No one is perfect. I certainly am not perfect. I know very few people who are perfect. We try to do our best all the time, but it seems to be creeping into society that people do things they should not be doing.

When it comes to the Judiciary, I have studied restorative justice, which now seems to be coming into play, very closely. To be honest, I have limited time for it because I see it as a cop-out for the Judiciary to engage in restorative justice rather than doing this or that with a sentence or judgment.

It is a sort of "off out with you there and sort it out yourselves" type of thing. If people were able to sort it out themselves, they would not have to go to the services of the courts in the first instance.

This whole issue is tricky. One thing that is of vital importance, as Deputy McGrath touched on, is the protection of our gardaí. The prospect of gardaí being injured or fatally injured in the line of duty is something that is very serious. We know what the penalty for that was at one time in this country. We have to be very careful to ensure the necessary penalties will always be there to protect not just the gardaí but every person in the State, while also being mindful of how we deal with young offenders in the future. I have an open mind. I appreciate very much that dealing with this whole subject is tricky.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure if there are three speakers left or there are two.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. There are 12 minutes. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae is next.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is obviously a very serious matter and we must treat it as such. When we are talking about mitigating the life sentence for the murder of some other human being, it is serious. You always have to think of the family whose family member was taken from them by someone else, whether it was with a knife, a gun or some other means. There are two sides to this. We cannot be seen to minimise the offence just because they are under age. I would like to think that people would be treated accordingly. We always knew "a life for a life", and that is what it should mean. However, if they were not brought up properly to understand, and if there were some mitigating reasons their sentence should not be as long, certainly they would have to face the rigours of the law in the first place and earn their right to be let out sometime later on if they were behaving, and if their prospects looked good. That would, in my mind, be after at least ten years. When a family loses a family member because another human being took the life of their young fellow, their mother or their father, it is a serious matter.

I could not stand here and say the Government should treat them differently from the start. However, if they want to earn it, if recognition could be given to what they are doing after a number of years and if they undertake educational or rehabilitation courses or whatever, after at least ten years maybe something like that should be considered. I am certainly not in favour of treating them differently if they are after committing murder.

There was a mention of the minimum sentence for the murder of a police officer. Many of these officers, or gardaí as we know them, are out on the streets today without weapons to defend themselves against people who, in many cases, are not travelling without guns or knives. It is hard for a garda to defend himself if he does not have a weapon. We see all the protests up here, or so-called protests. It seems to me that most of the time, the same team are protesting every day under a different guise and under a different banner. They are there again next week and the week after. We have to deal with these fellows in a tough fashion because otherwise, it will get out of hand. I cannot see that there should be a separate case made for them at the very start just because they are under age. They did what they did but if they want to earn their right to get out earlier, let them do that and have some way of doing that.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The main point of the changes being made in this criminal justice Bill is to address how young people who commit serious crimes like murder are sentenced. Specifically, it deals with the situations where someone commits a crime as a child but is sentenced after they reach the age of 18.

We are speaking about the sentencing of young people. I was talking to a mother the other day on the phone. Her biggest fear, and the fear of all mothers with young daughters at the moment, is making sure when their young daughters are out that they are with someone, and not on their own. The danger for young women - and men, I suppose, but especially women - when walking on their own is nightmarish stuff. This is the case even during the day or when walking around their college campus, but it should not be the way. Young women and women of all ages should be able to go about their business without the worry of being attacked or raped. We need to better educate the people out there. We need to teach them to treat women with respect. This needs to be done at home from an early age and followed on into school and all the way through life.

We need to encourage young people, in whatever way we can, to get off their devices and join local clubs and voluntary groups like community alert groups and community councils, as they did long ago. All of these groups are dying a death at present in local communities because young people will not join them. That is a hugely unfortunate situation. It will lead to further difficulties down the road. I know many young people who used to get involved before. They used to visit the elderly. That is where they contributed something to society. They felt the better of it in the long and short terms when they helped their neighbours and the elderly. If they are too busy, they will not have time to be committing crime.

Unfortunately, being on these devices, a lot of people are full of and see nothing but hatred a lot of the time. It is full of bitterness. What is on the Internet and these games they have today seems to be leading young people down a very dangerous road. If you get off to a very bad start in life, it is very hard to go back on track. I often fought the argument for a local community garda to be appointed to and live in the local community because most of them used to deal with young people very efficiently. When they were getting out of place, they took them, to a point, under their wing. They spoke to their parents, crime was nipped in the bud and young people saw the error of the ways and came right.

One area where that is being shown in my own constituency in west Cork is in the Garda youth awards. I know the situation here is mostly in regard to crimes that are committed but there are young people doing very good things out there. They are being rewarded for that. I thank Damian White, Jonathan McCarthy, Don Davis and other gardaí who set this up, ran it on a yearly basis and gave young people awards for the brave things they did and for helping their communities down through the years. I think we need to set up more Garda youth awards throughout the country to reward and encourage young people and to change the mindset. The mindset is that it is very easy to do wrong, and very easy to get into bad company. It is very easy to do all those things and hard to turn it around. We must encourage anything, with any leverage we have from within here, to reward those who do things right. It sends a message with regard to all the wrong things that are happening.

All too often, we hear of violent crimes and criminals guilty of sexual or violent offences receiving suspended sentences and walking free. These light sentences often precede the guilty party committing additional crimes and causing tragedies that should have been avoidable. While it is easy to blame the judge involved, the fact is Ireland has weak sentencing laws that must be reformed. Independent Ireland's policy is that we want to increase funding for law enforcement and stop Garda station closures. We want to introduce community policing systems and greater investment in early intervention and diversion programmes. Early intervention is the cure here. The Minister can only do her bit but if we as a State can make sure that early intervention is built into the system and local gardaí are working in their local communities, we will prevent crime to a higher degree than what is there at the moment.

When I was growing up, as a young person I was involved in community alerts from the word go. I was secretary of my local community alert at a very young age. It was an education. I was not perfect by any manner of means. We are all rogues when we are young, but we were educated at a very young age on how to respect people. Respect goes a long way, and that is unfortunately missing in society a lot, I suspect, today.

My new party also wants to implement measures to ensure responsibility for parents of minors convicted of antisocial behaviour. That is a big issue here.

Parents have to be educated now too, unfortunately, because young people do not seem to understand the difference between right and wrong, but sometimes get support for it at home. That is no way to go. If we are to tackle issues, we need to make sure that parents will also come before the system and the gardaí to make sure that our young people can be brought around and understand the wrong they are doing. We want to invest in more community alert systems, neighbourhood watch schemes and business alerts. We want to ensure year-round access to criminal courts in all parts of the country. We want to reform civil liability laws to ensure that criminals cannot sue for injuries sustained during the commission of a crime and that their victims are not financially liable for damages. We want to introduce a programme that treats violence as a contagious disease. We want to introduce a focus on rehabilitation for first-time offenders, offering education, job training and therapy.

I got quite a lot of criticism for an interview I did recently because I said we were going too light on crime. I am not talking about someone going around with a bald tyre or something like that but about very serious crime. We are light on it in this country. We need to have a very serious sentence after the third time. We need to make our communities safer so that people feel safe, so a young person, a young boy or girl, walking the street feels he or she can do so safely. That is not here at present. Unfortunately, that has crept into society bit by bit because we have a general acceptance. I know we can talk about more serious violence. It is slightly outside this discussion but we saw recent crimes in Ireland where gardaí were being attacked. It sent a bad message. The gardaí need to be absolutely and 100% protected in this State. That has not been the case in recent times. They seem to be as fearful as anyone else and they should not be. They should be there to protect us but they should be protected themselves. That was let slip by this Government.

As I said, dealing with young offenders is never easy. I fully accept that. It is hard to bring in a law that will bring everybody on board. I definitely think we need to focus on getting young people off mobile phones, the Internet and so on. Parents need to get more involved with youth and young people's events, and in the community. If you want to turn crime around, that is the road to travel. If we are not going to do that, we will be faced with difficult decisions in the years to come that will be uncomfortable for any Minister or politician to have to make. At present, that is the view that I think would help to make changes in this country.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill has been introduced because of the equality provision under Article 41 of the Constitution. Under that provision, there is a requirement to ensure that all citizens shall be dealt with equally before the law. That means that when the State and particularly the Oireachtas, when we enact laws, cannot unjustly or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens. It does not mean we cannot treat citizens differently, however, based on their social function or differences of capacity. For instance, there is much legislation that we have enacted which treats citizens differently, whether it is our taxation code, which is based on people's earnings, with different rates applying to their earnings, or the social welfare code, where social welfare supports are provided based on means-testing and the needs of individuals. We also have it in the public service, where people are forced to retire at a certain age and we set the pension at 66. We can, as a State, differentiate between citizens based on differences of capacity and social function, but we cannot indiscriminately discriminate against them unjustly based on an application of a law which applies to one group differently from another comparator and similar group.

The reason we are discussing this today is because of a decision of Mr. Justice Simons in the High Court that was delivered earlier this month. I commend the Minister and her officials for bringing forward legislation so promptly. We are still in September and the decision was delivered on 2 September this year. It is wise that the State has not gone through the process of trying to appeal this decision since I think it is fairly unanswerable in itself. The High Court ruling was effectively dealing with circumstances where people under the age of 18 years commit murder and yet they are only sentenced after they age out or become 18 years of age. The High Court noted that in circumstances where people commit a crime as a children under the age of 18 and they are sentenced before they reach the age of 18, they cannot be subjected to a term of imprisonment. Instead, they are subjected to a term of what is referred to as an indeterminate term of detention. They are still going to pay a heavy penalty for the serious crime that was committed but section 156 of the Children Act states, "No court shall pass a sentence of imprisonment on a child".

The Children Act also takes into account that when it comes to the sentencing of a child, which is a person under 18 years of age, section 96 requires certain factors to be taken into account. The point is that if a person or a child commits a murder before the age of 18 but his or her trial does not come on for a year or two years, and he or she then assumes the age of 18, he or she will then automatically receive a life sentence if convicted of murder. The High Court correctly appraised that there is an unfair treatment of people who were children when they committed the act of murder, who are treated differently because of something that is fairly arbitrary, namely, how long it took for the trial to come on and when they are sentenced. I think it is an unappealable decision and that the Minister is correct in bringing forward this legislation.

As many other Deputies have indicated, the commission of serious offences by children is extremely disturbing. It requires analysis and, let us be frank about it, it requires punishment too. However, I would not like the message to go out that if children manage to commit murders before the age of 18, they will in some respect avoid liability and responsibility for their heinous acts. That is not the case. When it comes to sentencing, however, they must be treated differently and they cannot be subjected to the mandatory life sentence because of the provisions of the Children Act. I do not know, Minister, whether there are many individuals who committed murder and were convicted of murders that were committed when they were under 18 and who were sentenced after the age of 18, who obviously would have received a life sentence. I do not know if there are many people in that category. If there are, I do not know what the Minister proposes to do in respect of it. It is extremely difficult to go back and deal with a sentence that has been imposed on an individual previously but it is certainly something that those individuals will have to consider themselves.

Regarding criminality by children, we all know that children are like sponges in a way. They absorb everything that is around them. If a child is brought up in a background where violence is common or they see the people who are bringing them up or influencing them engaging in violence, I regret to say it is inevitably the case that the child will also engage in violence. I was recently in a prison-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Visiting, I hope.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and I met a man who had been convicted of murder and had received a life sentence. He was not in any way trying to impress me but I was surprised by what he said to me, that when he was being brought up as a young man, he was taught by his father that all the problems in his life could be resolved through violence. He believed that into his 20s and 30s. He consistently believed that violence could solve the problems that he faced in life. He was honest in stating that he believed it did solve them and he was only now, in his mid-30s, coming to terms with the fact that that was not the case. There is a significant responsibility on people who are bringing up children. There are vast responsibilities on us all. We need to ensure that when we are bringing up children, we do our best to ensure they are not exposed to violence, because if a child is brought up seeing violence in his environment, there is a strong likelihood that child will engage in violence in the future. That is not to say that every child who gets involved in violence has been exposed to it as a young person but it is something we need to be conscious of.

The equality provision in the Constitution generally only triggers and kicks in when somebody takes litigation before the courts. We saw Ms de Burca do it in the 1970s in respect of the refusal to permit women or indeed ratepayers to perform the role of a juror.

That led to an extension of the equality provision. We must also recognise that it should not just be the responsibility of the courts to ensure equality is protected. We as the Oireachtas have to ensure it. That is why we should be careful about the legislation we enact and ensure it complies with Article 40.1 of the Constitution.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I welcome that the Government took on board my recommendation to ensure this Bill is a stand-alone Bill that addresses one important issue, rather than a Bill that lumps a lot of mostly unrelated issues into one piece of legislation, which the Government has been inclined to do lately with justice Bills. I am surprised that the need for this legislation to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1990 to ensure that mandatory life sentences for murder cannot be imposed on children who have turned 18 years old before sentencing was not foreseen and that the legislation had to be drafted following a recent High Court judgment, but that is the case. There is no doubt that the law, as it currently stands, is unjust. It is not fair that two people the same age when committing a crime would be treated differently if one aged out before their sentencing. Sentencing decisions should be based on the age of the person when they committed the crime and not the age they have become by the time they get to court. This legislation rectifies that. Most legal professionals have supported this view. The High Court found that this differing treatment of child offenders was a breach of Article 40.1 of the Constitution, which requires all citizens to be held equal before the law.

I agree that child offenders should not face trial as adults but I also believe they should not be tried before the Special Criminal Court, child or not, as is the case with the two teenagers charged with the murder in Blanchardstown on Christmas Eve last year. Its existence violates the constitutional requirement for all citizens to be held equal before the law. I have consistently condemned the continued operation of the Special Criminal Court. It completely undermines our justice system and suggests that our ordinary courts are inadequate There is no justification for the existence of the Special Criminal Court, a court which violates people’s right to a fair trial. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have on many occasions called for the abolition of the Special Criminal Court due to the significant human rights and equality concerns associated with it and the Offences Against the State Act.

I again point out that the independent review group’s report on the Offences Against the State Acts, published by the Minister for Justice last June, was unanimous in recommending repeal of the Offences Against the State Acts. The Minister has refused to act on this. Both the majority and minority reports agreed that this legislation should not be renewed and should be repealed. Yet, 15 months have passed and it is clear that the Minister has no intention to do so. It is quite the opposite - just three months ago, the Government again passed legislation to allow for its continuation. Today’s legislation just proves that the Government can bring forward legislation very quickly when it wants to; the High Court decision this legislation is based on was made just three weeks ago. The Government sits on its hands, however, in respect of other important legislation and uses every excuse under the sun to avoid progressing it. The Minister should at the very least allow for another independent review of the Special Criminal Court and the Offences Against the State Acts. I have stated this previously but it is clear that the independent review group faced a significant data deficit when conducting its research last year as there was a lack of adequate empirical evidence or sufficiently extensive comparative analysis. This is completely unacceptable and calls into question the findings of the independent review group as it is clear that it was not given the necessary and relevant information required to make the appropriate recommendations. I again voice my support for this legislation but I also call for another independent review that allows the review group the necessary data and again call for the abolition of the Special Criminal Court.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Members for their contributions and, for the most part, broad support for the proposed changes. I thank them for their assistance in bringing it forward. I will touch on the Bill itself and then, if the Chair allows some latitude, I will respond to other issues raised. The Bill is clear; we need to make sure there is equity. Nobody is disputing the fact that murder is the most serious crime, irrespective of who commits it. If it is committed by a child who then happens to age out by the time of sentencing, there has to be equity. At the moment, that does not exist, as clearly set out by the High Court judgment. This Bill will amend that and make sure that equity exists.

On the Deputy's proposed amendment, I commit to engaging with colleagues and the team on that matter. My understanding is that while the Children Act 2001 includes statutory sentences for certain crimes, there is no specific sentence for a murder committed by a child.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Children Act cannot apply to an adult.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely, but mandatory sentencing for murder is being disapplied in this case and that means we are reverting back to common law. If the two are separated, there is no sentence for a child who commits murder. I commit to engaging with my team on that to get clarity before speaking on it tomorrow.

More broadly, the best thing we can do for young people is to make sure they get the best start in life and that, where there are challenges in their lives, as they go through school or in their communities, we provide support, as well as deterrents to engaging in criminal activity or behaviour. This Government has done a huge amount in that regard. We have invested significant money in our youth justice strategy, which was initiated by my colleague, Deputy Stanton, who was previously in the Department, and has been worked through by the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, and me. That funding does not just go to youth diversion programmes, it also involves looking at how we can expand those programmes and make sure they are available throughout the country, as well as looking at younger cohorts. It is clear that children who are six, seven, eight or nine years of age are being brought into a life of crime, engaging in antisocial behaviour and then potentially moving on to criminal activity. That funding is being used to look at how we can be more focused and targeted, with an even spread across the country. Specifically linked to that is the Greentown project. We do not talk about it enough because the work is done in certain areas without highlighting where they are. There are 1,000 children benefiting from this intense intervention in which An Garda Síochána works closely with local services and, in particular, the families and communities of these young people, understanding and acknowledging that many challenges may start in the home or community and examining how we can address that and support them. The Greentown project has been expanded but if it could be rolled out across the country using those intensive ways of working with young people, that would be beneficial.

The legislation I enacted recently acknowledges the harm inflicted on young people who are coerced into a life of crime. Five years was chosen because, for many of these children, it is a family member, parent or somebody in their inner circle. That sentence can be applied on top of the sentence for the crime. It is not just five years; it is the crime itself as well. To take that person out of the child's life could potentially be more harmful. It is not to negate the crime or the seriousness of it. There is now a law that if you coerce a child, separate from the offence itself, into crime or a life of crime, there will be a significant sentence. It is to get balance and ensure we can support the child and the setting they are in with broader support that needs to be provided. On crime and the work to dismantle these groups enticing so many young children, huge investment has gone into An Garda Síochána, which can be seen in the work in the past week alone to dismantle these organised crime groups. My role is to make sure they have resources, funding and laws to do that. I increased the conspiracy to murder sentence, acknowledging and recognising it is often not the people who make the decision who pull the trigger but they are equally detrimental and cause as much misery in communities as those working on the ground.

Separate from that is the criminal justice system. One might say some problems arise because the system is too slow. Everything I do when it comes to our courts is to make sure there is a quicker, more efficient and easily accessible system. That is why I appointed 30 new judges in the past two years and will add 20 more in the years ahead. The UK has been referenced with regard to quicker sentencing. Evidence has a huge amount to do with that, which is why body cameras are essential for gardaí. We have seen that not only can evidence be gathered quickly in the UK using CCTV, facial recognition technology and AI, that evidence can be used to ensure guilty pleas, making sure there are quicker sentences. I am doing all I can to make sure gardaí have body cameras, which has started, and facial recognition technology and that gardaí have access to that evidence, coupled with investment in judges, their support staff and the modernisation of our courts. That is the only way to get to a system that is efficient and effective for everybody.

People mentioned protecting gardaí. Yes, we need to make sure we have more gardaí. I am doing everything I can to increase those numbers and keep the gardaí we have. I point to body cameras and the effect they are already having. I have spoken to gardaí on the ground who clearly said that because of the body-worn cameras, they have been able to de-escalate situations and have felt safer. The first conviction involving body camera evidence which showed the aggression towards the Garda member has been obtained in the courts. That person received a three-month sentence, which they probably would not have received otherwise. A huge amount is being invested in our criminal justice system, An Garda Síochána and protecting younger people.

This Bill is very clear. We need to ensure equality between children and those who have aged out when it comes to sentencing for a conviction of murder. The Bill will change the position in this regard. I will come back to the Deputy on the point he raised. We will engage on it again tomorrow.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Committee and Remaining Stages of this Bill will be taken in the House tomorrow.