Judges need guidance in sentencing, says law reform report

A dedicated body should have the power to publish sentencing guidance for judges in order to address the "level of inconsistency" in the system, according to the Law Reform Commission.

In a report to be published today, the commission reaffirms the value of judicial discretion but notes "deficiencies" in Ireland's largely unstructured sentencing system. It suggests this could be corrected by empowering the Judicial Council to publish guidance.

The sentencing process made headlines last week when a man who raped his wife’s 14-year-old sister was given a suspended jail sentence after a judge ruled that imprisonment would impose extreme hardship on the rapist’s family. In the Central Criminal Court yesterday, a former Galway hotel owner was given a six-year sentence for the rape of an employee.

The report endorses retaining mandatory life sentences for murders but says the sentencing judge should be allowed to recommend a specific minimum term the offender must serve.

'Presumptive' sentences
It also suggests current laws on "presumptive" minimum sentences for certain drugs and firearms offences are not working and should be repealed. These "presumptive" regimes require that a court must ordinarily impose a specific minimum term except in exceptional circumstances.

While acknowledging that the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeal have developed guidance in a number of areas, the commission notes that "there remain deficiencies in the sentencing system in Ireland".

It recommends that the Judicial Council, due to be established on a statutory footing by the Government, should publish guidelines that would take into account guidance from the appeals courts and set out the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered by judges. The report also recommends that the Parole Board should be established on an independent statutory basis.

Arguing that “presumptive” minimum sentences for drugs and firearms offences are not working, the report says many coming before the courts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 are low-level mules rather than high-level barons and it is “questionable” whether “presumptive” regimes are reducing prohibited or unwanted conduct.