Every time there is a new minister for justice there is a crime crisis. When Nora Owen became minister for justice there was a crime crisis every second week. When John O'Donoghue became minister for justice there was a crime crisis for a year, writes Vincent Browne.
Now with Michael McDowell there is a crisis again. It will die down in a year or so when the current Minister might be deemed to have some responsibility for the level of crime (a largely mistaken belief) but, in the meantime, the crisis can be milked to justify a raft of more coercive legislation and further targeting of vulnerable people in society.
The publication of the "headline offence statistics" earlier this month has given the impression that crime is out of control. It showed an increase of 19,207. Of this increase, the least significant of these "headline crimes", larceny, recorded an increase of 12, 448, almost two-thirds of the total increase (64 per cent).
Incidentally, a few years ago a survey done on larceny in Ireland found that the average worth of the property involved was less than £200.
Most such crimes involve the theft of mobile phones, theft from cars and shoplifting. Yes, it is irritating to have one's mobile phone stolen or have your car broken into but, come on, it does not amount to a "crime crisis".
A lot of mileage has been made from the increase in the level of sexual offences. This rose by 584 to 1,632.
But don't we know by now that reported variations in the level of sexual offences are unreliable because it depends so much on the willingness of (mainly) women to report such offences?
The main focus has been on the level of assaults and, in particular, on assaults causing harm. This rose by 1,647 to 4,761, an increase of one third.
A few points about this. The first is that as a proportion of total crime, this is very far down the list and as a proportionate increase in these headline crimes, it constitutes less than 9 per cent.
There must also be a suspicion that an increase in the reported level of this crime is inflated by greater Garda surveillance of scenes outside pubs and nightclubs late at night.
And a further point, the offence of "assault causing harm" was created in the Non-Fatal Offences Act 1997. Section 3 of this Act states: "A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence." The penalty on indictment is a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.
It is not at all clear how this offence differs from simple assault, which in Section 2 of the Act is defined: "A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly, directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another."
It is therefore obvious that the offence of "assault causing harm" could range from relatively serious (for the more serious assaults there is the offence of causing serious harm) to the trivial. The basis for the fuss is not entirely clear.
The recent publication by the Garda Commissioner of these headline offences does include (I think for the first time) reference to offences under the Companies Act and falsification of accounts.
Offences under the Companies Acts include fraudulent trading (this involves companies running up huge debts without the capacity to repay their creditors), insider dealing (using confidential company information to make fortunes from trading in shares), failure to keep books of accounts, falsifying company documents, furnishing false information.
How many such offences were recorded in the year 2002? Would you say over 2,000 or under 2,000? Come on, we all know it's going on all over the State, people making money from insider trading, fraudulent trading, falsifying accounts. So you want to up your estimate, say to around 5,000.
Wrong.
Just one. Yes, just one (as in one, two, three, not as in 100, 200, or 1,000 or 2,000, just one, "a haon"). One crime under the Companies Acts recorded in 2002.
There are also crimes under the Competition Acts and EU directives but, apparently, the Garda Síochána has not discovered this as yet or if it has, it thinks it is not its business, not even to record such crimes. Just as it thinks it is none of its business even to mention, possibly the most prevalent of all crimes in this country, tax fraud.
Not a mention.
By the way, there was a 100 per cent detection rate for offences under the Companies Acts. Reassuring. I wonder who it was and how they got caught.
So we wring our hands over the crisis concerning thefts of mobile phones and shop lifting and assaults that may or may not be serious and don't bother about the industry in tax fraud, company fraud, insider dealing.
It's the crimes of the poor that matter.