Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

and to hold public seminars on matters relevant to sentencing. 228 Thirdly, ISIS has also published three
recent analyses, 229 prepared by the Judicial Researchers’ Office, of sentencing in cases of: (i) rape, (ii)
manslaughter, and (iii) robbery.
(c)
Judicial Council
1.116 The Commission observes that a Judicial Council may now be added to this list. In 2011, the
Chief Justice established a Judicial Council on an interim basis. 230 This followed the publication in 2010
of the Scheme of a Judicial Council Bill. 231 This was inspired by the 2000 <strong>Report</strong> of the Committee on
Judicial Conduct and Ethics (the Keane Committee) which recommended the establishment of a Judicial
Council which would have “functions similar in some respects to those of the judicial commission
established in New South Wales.” 232 Head 4 of the Scheme of a Judicial Council Bill proposes that the
members of the Judicial Council would be the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the
President of the Circuit Court and the President of the District Court. Head 12 proposes the
establishment of a Judicial Studies Institute as a committee of the Judicial Council. It also proposes that
the functions of the Institute would include the preparation and distribution of Bench Books and the
dissemination of information on sentencing. 233
1.117 By contrast with the courts and ISIS, it is likely that such a Judicial Studies Institute would be in a
position to formulate guidance on a regular and on-going basis. This guidance could be informed by wide
ranging research and made available to all the courts and the public. Furthermore, as a Judicial Council
would be led by members of the judiciary, this process of developing guidance should not take away from
the need to preserve judicial independence or judicial discretion.
(d)
Developments in Northern Ireland
1.118 The Commission observes that Ireland is somewhat behind the majority of its common law
counterparts regarding the development of structured sentencing mechanisms which have, by and large,
taken the form of statutory sentencing frameworks. 234 However, in respect of Northern Ireland (a legal
jurisdiction which closely resembles our own), Ireland seems to have reached a similar stage in its
consideration of how best to achieve a more structured sentencing system.
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
Ibid.
See: www.irishsentencing.ie/en/ISIS/Pages/WP09000222 [Last accessed: 22 May 2013].
See “Work to establish an interim Judicial Council begins” Courts Service News Vol 13 Issue 3 (Winter 2011)
at 15.
Available at:
www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20Judicial%20Bill.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20Judicial%
20Bill.pdf [Last accessed: 22 May 2013]. The Government Legislation Programme, Summer Session 2013
(April 2013), Section B, Item 49, available at www.taoiseach.ie, indicates that a Judicial Council Bill is
expected to be published in late 2013 [Last accessed: 22 May 2013].
<strong>Report</strong> of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (Government Publications, 2000) at 52. The Keane
Committee was established on the basis of a recommendation in the <strong>Report</strong> of the Working Group on a Courts
Commission 1998 (Government Publications, 1998) at 175-176.
The Thornton Hall Project Review Group raised the possibility of “judicially framed guidelines” forming part of
the programme for the proposed Judicial Council. See: <strong>Report</strong> of the Thornton Hall Project Review Group
2011 at 73.
England and Wales (Criminal Justice Act 2003); Australia [New South Wales (Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)
Act 1999); Northern Territory (Sentencing Act); Queensland (Penalties and Sentences Act 1992); South
Australia (Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988); Tasmania (Sentencing Act 1997); Victoria (Sentencing Act
1991); Western Australia (Sentencing Act 1995); Commonwealth of Australia (Crimes Act 1914)]; New
Zealand (Sentencing Act 2002, as amended by the Sentencing (Amendment) Act 2007); and Canada
(Canadian Criminal Code).
37