Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

White Paper, the provisions of the 1991 Act were less clear. 266 Within months of its introduction, parts of
the 1991 Act had been dismantled and over the years, its provisions, having been rarely cited in
judgments, faded into the background.
2.122 In 1993, there was a dramatic change in the penal climate following the murder of James
Bulger. 267 In 1996, the Government published another White Paper on Crime 268 in which it: (i) indicated
that it would be taking a punitive approach to tackling crime; 269 (ii) expressed the view that prison
worked; 270 and (iii) sought to introduce mandatory sentencing in respect of a number of offences. In
particular, it indicated that it was necessary to impose “severe deterrent sentences” on persistent dealers
in hard drugs 271 and thus recommended that the courts be required to impose a minimum sentence of 7
years on those convicted of a third Class A drug trafficking offence. 272 The fact that this was a significant
departure from the prevailing penal philosophy can be illustrated by the fact that the same Government
had, in 1990, stated that prison was just “an expensive way of making bad people worse”. 273 The 1996
White Paper was criticised as reflecting the “increasing managerialism and politicisation of sentencing
policy”. 274
2.123 The Crime (Sentences) Bill 1996, which sought to implement the recommendations contained in
the 1996 White Paper, was introduced in the dying months of the Conservative Government. 275 The Bill
was severely criticised by the House of Lords on the ground that its provisions were unwarranted and
unjustified. 276 Thomas notes, for instance, the view of Lord Taylor of Gosforth that “never in the history of
our criminal law have such far-reaching proposals been put forward on the strength of such flimsy
evidence”. 277 In March 1996, a General Election was announced. On the one hand, this eased the
passage of the 1996 Bill through Parliament by putting the Government under pressure to complete or
abandon any bills that were before it while, at the same time, the Opposition did not want to be seen as
“soft on crime” in the run up to an election. On the other hand, it gave the House of Lords leverage to
force the outgoing Government to accept certain amendments. 278 As a result, the Home Secretary
agreed to retain a House of Lords’ amendment, which gave the sentencing court discretion not to impose
the mandatory minimum sentence on Class A drug traffickers in specified circumstances, 279 in return for
the Opposition’s agreement to support 17 Government Bills.
www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.aspDocid=144&Catid=18&StartDate=01+January+2001 [Last accessed: 22 May
2013].
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
Ashworth and Player “Criminal Justice Act 2003: The Sentencing Provisions” (2005) 68 Mod L Rev 822.
Ibid.
White Paper on Protecting the Public - The Government’s Strategy on Crime in England and Wales (HMSO,
1996).
Ibid at 3.
Ibid at 4.
Ibid at 23.
Ibid at 49.
Ashworth and Player “Criminal Justice Act 2003: The Sentencing Provisions” (2005) 68 Mod L Rev 822.
Henham “Back to the Future on Sentencing: The 1996 White Paper” (1996) 59 Mod L Rev 861.
Fitzgerald “Californication of Irish Sentencing Law” (2008) 18 ICLJ 42.
Ibid; Thomas “The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997” [1998] Crim LR 83; and Thomas Current Law Statutes
(Sweet and Maxwell, 1997) at 43-3.
Current Law Statutes (Sweet and Maxwell, 1997) at 43-3.
Fitzgerald “Californication of Irish Sentencing Law” (2008) 18 ICLJ 42.
The amendment also applied to those sentenced for domestic burglary. See: Henham “Making Sense of the
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997” (1998) 61 Mod L Rev 223.
75