Training of judiciary urged for sex cases

Demands were made in the Dáil yesterday for the training of members of the judiciary to improve their sensitivity and insight, particularly in rape and sexual assault cases and in family law.

Fine Gael's justice spokesman, Mr Alan Shatter, highlighted recent cases in which the sentences imposed had left the public "gasping in incredulity".

He asked: "How many sexual offences does someone have to commit for the judiciary to take the view that the offender should go to jail?"

Referring to the case of James Kelly (Brother Ambrose), who pleaded guilty to 77 offences of sexual abuse over 40 years and was sentenced to 34 years, but only served two and is to be released because he was "remorseful", Mr Shatter commented: "He should be locked up for life. People are always remorseful when they are caught."

He also referred to the "extraordinary" case in which a judge gave a suspended sentence on the grounds that "it was only rape" and in which the only other criticism of the offender was that he had threatened to kill his victim.

This was "quite extraordinary" and showed a "frightening lack of insight", he said, calling for the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal the leniency of the sentence.

His comments were echoed by Ms Monica Barnes (FG, DúLaoghaire), who said that such lenient judgments not only denied people justice, but in rape and serious sexual assault cases left them feeling that they were being "raped and traumatised all over again".

She said that in a climate where everyone had to be highly skilled and update their skills to hold on to their jobs, it was extraordinary that there was no demand for such training within our legal system.

They were speaking during the debate on the Courts and Courts Officers Bill.

Under the legislation, solicitors would be eligible for direct appointment as judges of the High Court and Supreme Court. There would also be increased transparency and accountability in the manner in which the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board operated.

However, Fine Gael's health spokesman, Mr Gay Mitchell, sharply criticised a proposal to give the Attorney General a statutory right to be consulted before judges were appointed. This would put him in the position "of insider on behalf of one stream of lawyers".

Mr Shatter said that the Attorney General, currently Mr Michael McDowell, would be in a superior position on appointments, ahead of the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court. Fine Gael is to introduce an amendment on the issue.

The Bill also allows for the district courts to make awards of up to €20,000, an increase from the current €5,000 limit. Circuit court awards will increase from €30,000 to €100,000, but Mr Willie Penrose (Labour, Westmeath) criticised this as too much.

The aim of the increases was to substantially reduce the amount of litigation and resulting costs in the High Court. However, Mr Penrose, a barrister, said that the figures should be €60,000 to €65,000. Otherwise, a "huge workload" would be generated at circuit court level.

The Bill now goes to committee stage.