The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has suggested judges should have a clear "starting point" for setting jail sentences and should explain any deviation from that point when handing down punishments.
In public comments yesterday, James Hamilton said: "The judges take exception to accusations of inconsistency in sentencing patterns, but they themselves have been reluctant to set measurable standards for sentencing by which the consistency of sentences could be judged."
|
James Hamilton: "judges take exception to accusations of inconsistency in sentencing" |
Mr Hamilton, the State's chief prosecuting lawyer, said there was a case for a more structured and more transparent system in which judges would have a clear "starting point" for sentencing for a given offence.
In remarks made yesterday on the publication of his office's new information booklets, Mr Hamilton said his office's role was to demystify the criminal justice system for participants.
Mr Hamilton, who does not explain publicly the reasons for his decisions to take, or not to take, prosecutions, said there were "so many possible pitfalls" between the start of a prosecution and its successful outcome.
"The prosecutor must weigh up whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution should proceed at all. There are limitations on admissible evidence. Delay in obtaining a trial continues to be a major problem," he added.
"Our system of judicial review presents an accused who wishes to postpone the evil day with ample opportunities to do so. Giving evidence and being cross-examined is an ordeal," he said in a statement reproduced on his website.
"The conviction, if one is secured at all, may be for a lesser offence than that charged. The sentencing process itself can often be bewildering for an onlooker.
Speaking off-script, in comments reported in the Irish Examiner, Mr Hamilton said: "For example, if someone gets into a car drunk and then kills someone, where is the starting point for sentencing? Is it five years and then a reduction for mitigating circumstances and an increase for aggravating factors?
Jim O'Keeffe, Fine Gael
"It's difficult to get them [judges] to commit themselves to having a starting point. They are very reluctant. It has happened in other jurisdictions, and there is a danger that it can be very mechanical but perhaps we go to the other extreme where judges say every case is different.
"That's all very well up to a point, but it can make it very difficult for the public to understand why one person gets a long sentence and another person gets a suspended sentence.
"There are very often very good explanations but the public very often feel that the thing is a bit of a lottery."
Fine Gael's justice spokesman, Jim O'Keeffe, welcomed the DPP's call for judges to provide a full explanation for their sentencing decisions and said similar proposals formed the basis of a "radical sentencing policy" approved by Fine Gael at its ardfheis in May.
"The public is getting tired of hearing how hardened criminals are getting away with minimal jail sentences, and how drug dealers are not being sent to jail," he said.
The Fine Gael TD also called for proper judicial training programmes to ensure judges "remain in touch with social norms on sentencing".
Green Party justice spokesman Ciarán Cuffe also welcomed the calls for judges to adopt a new system whereby they would have to explain the reasons behind their sentencing.
"We have seen a number of cases over the past few months where there have been huge disparities between the sentences handed down for similar offences. It can be extremely bewildering for a victim of a crime when a sentence is handed down that seems at odds with the offence in question," he said.
"It is imperative that the Irish judiciary enjoy the full confidence of the Irish people. Implementing this system will improve the public's understanding of decisions handed down."