Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

since 1996; and (iii) information in relevant databases including, in particular, the Irish Sentencing
Information System (ISIS).
1.128 The Commission supports the recommendations made in 2000, and reiterated in 2011, that a
Judicial Council be empowered to develop and publish suitable guidance or guidelines on sentencing,
which would reflect the general aims of criminal sanctions and the principles of sentencing discussed in
this <strong>Report</strong>. The Commission also recommends that such guidance or guidelines should have regard to:
(i) the sentencing guidance and guidelines available from decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court
of Criminal Appeal (including those discussed in this <strong>Report</strong>); (ii) the aggravating and mitigating factors,
and individual offender characteristics, identified in the Commission’s 1996 <strong>Report</strong> on Sentencing and
developed by the courts since 1996; and (iii) information in relevant databases including, in particular, the
Irish Sentencing Information System (ISIS).
(4) Structured Sentencing in the Context of Mandatory and Presumptive Regimes
1.129 The Commission acknowledges the importance of a structured sentencing system because, in
general terms, such a system is more likely to lead to outcomes that reduce the risk of an inconsistent
application of key principles. In particular, a structured system would be more likely to ensure that the
principles-based appellate guidance discussed above would be applied in practice. This is important in
the context of the general discretion that the Oireachtas has conferred on the courts in respect of such
serious offences as manslaughter, rape and fraud, and which the appellate courts have recognised (in the
discussed Princs, Tiernan and Murray cases) should be reflected in the general approach to be taken in
determining individual sentencing outcomes.
1.130 In Chapter 2, the Commission discusses in detail the history of the development of mandatory
and presumptive sentences. This Chapter notes that the development of the mandatory life sentence for
murder evolved as a replacement for the death penalty and thus has a very different narrative and can be
considered sui generis. Bearing in mind that unique history, the Commission makes specific proposals in
Chapter 3 in connection with the sentencing regime for murder, which are informed by the principles
discussed in this Chapter and the proposed development of a more structured sentencing system.
1.131 The Commission also notes in Chapter 2 that the development of presumptive sentences, notably
for certain drugs and firearms offences, differed from that of the mandatory life sentence for murder. The
Commission notes that, both internationally and nationally, these sentences were introduced against
specific backgrounds, notably the emergence of organised crime. The Commission acknowledges that,
to some extent, these sentencing regimes emerged in Ireland against the backdrop of a growing
recognition of the significant harm caused to society by such offences, and a wish on the part of the
Oireachtas to mark the gravity of these offences by placing severe constraints on sentencing discretion.
1.132 The Commission considers that, in these contexts, the nature of the constraints imposed on
sentencing discretion may also have been influenced by the relatively unstructured nature of the
sentencing system and the resulting risk of inconsistency identified in the surveys discussed above. In
that respect, the Commission considers that the proposals for a principles-based structured sentencing
system (as outlined in this Chapter and supported by the Commission) would assist in ensuring that, in
practice, there is an appropriate application of relevant sentencing principles. In that respect also, the
specific recommendations in Chapter 4 regarding drugs and firearms offences have been influenced by
these proposed developments.
1.133 As to mandatory and presumptive sentencing regimes for habitual offenders, the Commission
acknowledges in Chapter 2 the much longer history of these statutory interventions. The Commission’s
specific recommendations in Chapter 5 regarding repeat offences have also been influenced by the
discussion of sentencing principles in this Chapter, and by the proposals for a more structured sentencing
regime.
41