Ten days ago, Mark Synnott became the first company director in the history of the State to be given a prison sentence for fraudulent trading and fraudulent conversion. He pleaded guilty to a series of crimes over a long period which cheated a number of elderly people of their life's savings a total of £400,000 under the charges on which he was convicted, and considerably more relating to others on which a nolle prosequi was entered. His frauds, which involved a long and pensive investigation, were knowingly committed and the money he extorted from his clients was spent on high living. They are not likely" to get more than a nominal amount back.
For this, Mr Synnott was sentenced to four years and three months and will not be allowed to serve as a company director or auditor for ten years. No doubt the judge at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, who heard details which were not reported, regarded this as an adequate punishment. As it may well have been.
What must concern the general public about the law in this State is that a sentence considered proper for a major fraudster in one court should be regarded as inadequate for a man who stole food and briquettes, worth £31 in another. The judge at Castlebar Circuit Court may have heard evidence about Eddie Conroy, whose case was reported on Thursday, which was not published, and had his reasons for sentencing him to five years in jail. Information emerged that related to the defendant's right to choose to be tried by a jury, and his lawyer argued that he had done this, and then pleaded guilty, not to be awkward but because he thought he would get a better hearing in the higher court. It is difficult to see how this was relevant, in any event, to the judge's decision.
It ought also to be - and no doubt was - irrelevant that Mr Conroy is a traveller. Cases where apparently disproportionate sentences have been imposed are common enough, and there is no evidence yet that travellers, or any other social group, have been particularly singled out. (Pavee Point's promised research, if put in the context of all socially deprived groups, will be an important contribution to ensuring that the law is applied equally.) It is often puzzling for the general public to understand the processes by which judges, particularly in the lower courts, arrive at their decisions. Young, unemployed people are given large fines instead of community work, people obviously under pressure or with psychological problems are treated on the same basis as others who make a career out of petty crime - often the processes seem barely rational.
Obviously none of this is pertinent to a particular case, except in so far as a heavy sentence for any apparently minor crime must always be questioned, if only because of the risk that it will bring the law into disrepute. With drug dealing and the random use of violence on the increase, absurdly light penalties are frequently imposed, shaking the confidence of the public. For this reason, in other jurisdictions, guidelines are laid down to ensure that punishments broadly fit crimes. It is the only logical approach.
At the least, the Minister for Justice should make a practice of satisfying herself about the judge's reasons in cases which give rise to public anxiety.