Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:54:35.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminal justice and penal populism in Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Liz Campbell
Liz Campbell*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In constructing criminal policy the Irish legislature seems to be driven predominantly by a pragmatic and populist approach, in contrast to the rights-oriented jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. This paper describes the conflict between the courts and the legislature in relation to criminal justice matters in Ireland, particularly in the context of bail, the exclusionary rule and sentencing, and analyses the reasons for this divergence, drawing on the concept of penal populism. Although the Irish courts serve as a valuable bulwark against punitive populist policies, this paper considers if this failure to adhere to the desires of the legislature and to public opinion is anti-democratic. Furthermore, in assessing the apparent rift between the two arms of the Irish State, this paper highlights areas of criminal justice in which this conceptualisation of the legislature as punitive and the courts as rights-enforcing is unduly simplistic and possibly inaccurate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 559 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Kilcommins, S et al Crime, Punishment and the Search for Order in Ireland (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 2004) p 109 Google Scholar, table3.3; , table1;

2. Garland, D The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) p 107 Google Scholar; Kilcommins et al, above n 1, p 90; ;

3. See, eg, Kilcommins et al, above n 1.

4. See Bottoms, A The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing’ in Clarkson, C and Morgan, R (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) pp 17–50 Google Scholar; ); Garland, above n 2, pp 13–14. Kilcommins et al, above n 1, have explored the extent to which theories such as Garland's culture of control thesis are sustainable in the Irish context. For a broader examination of populism in Ireland see

5. Pratt, above n 4, p 34; also Ryan, M Penal Policy and Political Culture in England and Wales: Four Essays on Policy and Process (Winchester: Waterside Press, 2003).Google Scholar

6. Canovan, M Trust the People! Populism and the two faces of democracy’ (1999) XLVII Political Studies 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 5; and 91–92.

7. Pratt, above n 4; Roberts, J et al Penal Populism and Public Opinion Lessons from Five Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

8. Taggart, above n 6; Canovan, above n 6, at 6.

9. Kilcommins et al, above n 1, p 72 et seq and O'Donnell, I Stagnation and change in Irish penal policy’ (2008) 47 Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Packer, H The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (California: Stanford University Press, 1968) p 173.Google Scholar

11. [1966] IR 501 at 516 per Walsh J; at 508–509 per O'Dálaigh CJ.

12. [1989] IR 399. Also People (DPP) v Carmody [1988] ILRM 370 and People (DPP) v Jackson (unreported) 26 April 1993, Court of Criminal Appeal.

13. An Garda Síochána Annual Report of An Garda Síochána 1996 (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1997) p 76 Google Scholar; Dáil Debates 16 October 1996, vol 470, cols 251–252 per Mr O'Keeffe. For example, at the time, preventative refusal of bail was already permitted in England and Wales under the Bail Act 1976.

14. King, S and Wilford, R Irish political data, 1996’ (1997) 12 Irish Political Studies 148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 161.

15. An Garda Síochána Annual Report of An Garda Síochána 1998 (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1999) p 108 Google Scholar and

16. Bail Act 1997 (Commencement) Order 2000, SI 2000/118.

17. An Garda Síochána Annual Report of An Garda Síochána 2005 (Dublin: Stationery Office, 2006) p 43.Google Scholar

18. Dáil Debates 2 February 2006, vol 613, col 1924.

19. ‘McDowell questions judges' bail decisions’ RTE News 15 December 2006

20. Section 6.

21. Bail Act 1997, s 2A (as amended).

22. Article 40.4.1.

23. Maguire v DPP [2004] 3 IR 241 at 254.

24. National Crime Council An Examination of Time Intervals in the Investigation and Prosecution of Murder and Rape Cases in Ireland from 2002 to 2004 (Dublin: Stationery Office, 2006) pp 19–21.Google Scholar

25. Indeed the Irish approach is stricter on state agents than that in England and Wales, where s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows a court to exclude prosecution evidence if admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings (see Dennis, I The Law of Evidence (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd edn, 2007) p 91 Google Scholar et seq). This permits the use of improperly obtained but reliable evidence which does not compromise the fairness of the trial itself.

26. [1965] IR 142 at 170.

27. People (DPP) v Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110 at 134.

28. DPP v Curtin (unreported) 23 April 2004, South-Western Circuit Criminal Court.

29. Minister for Justice Rebalancing Criminal Justice – Remarks by Tanaiste in Limerick (20 October 2006), available at http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Speech_rebalancing_criminal_justice.

30. Director of Public Prosecutions, Opening Remarks, 7th Annual National Prosecutor's Conference (13 May 2006); Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group Final Report of the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group (Dublin: Stationery Office, 2007) pp 165–166.Google Scholar

31. See, inter alia, State (Healy) v Donoghue[1976] IR 325; Cox v Ireland[1992] 2 IR 503; People (DPP) v Sheedy[2000] 2 IR 184. See O'Malley, T Sentencing Law and Practice (Dublin: Thomson Round Hall, 2nd edn, 2006) p 54 Google Scholar and

32. Rock v Ireland [1997] 3 IR 484 at 500.

33. For an examination of similar developments in England and Wales see Ashworth, A The decline of English sentencing and other stories’ in Tonry, M (ed) Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) p 77.Google Scholar

34. People (DPP) v Botha [2004] 2 IR 375 at 384 and People (DPP) v Heffernan (unreported) 10 October 2002, Court of Criminal Appeal.

35. People (DPP) v Vardacardis (unreported) 20 January 2003, Court of Criminal Appeal; People (DPP) v Alexiou[2003] 3 IR 513; People (DPP) v McGinty (unreported) 3 April 2006, Court of Criminal Appeal. Also see McEvoy, P Research for the Department of Justice on the Criteria applied by the Courts in Sentencing under s. 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 (as amended) (Dublin: Department of Justice, 2005) p 8.Google Scholar

36. For example People (DPP) v Byrne [2003] 4 IR 423; People (DPP) v Ducque (unreported) 15 July 2005, Court of Criminal Appeal; DPP v Long (unreported) 7 April 2006, Court of Criminal Appeal.

37. ‘Mandatory drug offence terms rarely imposed’ Irish Times 7 March 2006.

38. Section 82(3).

39. Section 84(d).

40. See ss 86, 42, 57–60 and 84(d).

41. See ‘McDowell criticises bail law application’ Irish Times 15 December 2006; and Dáil Debates 24 May 2006, vol 620, col 502 per Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell.

42. See ‘Courts pulled up for “low” drug jail terms’ Irish Independent 13 November 2006.

43. When a person has been convicted on indictment of such an offence and sentenced to at least 5 years and then commits another offence in Sch 2 to the Act within 7 years (excluding any period of imprisonment) from the date of conviction of the first offence, the minimum term of imprisonment to be imposed is not less than three-quarters of the maximum term of imprisonment for such an offence, or not less than 10 years if the maximum term is life imprisonment.

44. A ‘three strikes’ provision in California (upheld in Ewing v California 538 US 11 (2003)) imposes an automatic life sentence on persons convicted of a third felony. See Zimring, F, Hawkins, G and Kamin, S Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You're Out in California (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

45. For example, the Minister for Justice claimed that ‘the people of Ireland are strongly of the view that these penalties [for drugs offences] are appropriate’: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform Press Release ‘Address by An Tanaiste to the Annual Delegate Conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors’ 2 April 2007. See Kennedy, P and Browne, C Garda Public Attitudes Survey 2007 (Tipperary: Garda Research Unit, 2007) p 53 Google Scholar, table82.

46. See Survey for Irish Times by IMS (code: J4880) 22 May 1981, Q21; Survey for Omnibus by IMS (code: J452) 14 February 1982, Q8; Survey for Independent Newspapers by IMS (code: PMacN/mb.J11345) 8–10 April 1988, Q5.

47. Dooley, E Homicide in Ireland 1972–1991 (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1995) p 26 Google Scholar; and

48. Survey for Sunday Independent by IMS (code: 6S-308) 4 July 1996, Q8.

49. Kennedy and Brown4, above n 45, pp 48–50; Central Statistics Office Crime and Victimisation Quarterly National Household Survey 2006 (Dublin: CSO, 2007 Google Scholar) table14a.

50. Amárach Consulting Quality of Life in Ireland (Dublin: Amárach and Diageo Ireland, 2004) p 10.Google ScholarPubMed

51. Morning Ireland, RTE Radio One, 14 December 2006.

52. Dáil Debates 16 October 1996, vol 471, col 272 per Mr McGahon.

53. Survey for Independent Newspapers by IMS (code: CMC/SOS/1d/J3S272) 16 August 1993, Q2; also see Hough, M and Roberts, J Sentencing trends in Britain: public knowledge and public opinion’ (1999) 1 Punishment and Society 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Survey for Independent by IMS, above n 53, Q11 and 15; see Hough, M and Roberts, J Confidence in Justice: An International Review (London: Home Office, 2004).Google Scholar

55. Ely, J Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1980) p 70.Google Scholar

56. In the Irish context, see Hardiman, A The role of the Supreme Court in our democracy’ in Mulholland, J (ed) Political Choice and Democratic Freedom in Ireland: 40 Leading Irish Thinkers (Dublin: Joe Mulholland, 2004 Google Scholar) quoted in . at 347.

57. Articles 5 and 6.

58. See MacIver, R The Web of Government (New York: Macmillan, 1955).Google Scholar

59. Simon, J Megan's law: crime and democracy in late modern America 2000 Law and Social Inquiry 1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. See Strøm, K, Müller, W and Bergman, T Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

61. Roosevelt, K The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006) p 15.Google Scholar

62. In contrast, in the UK, s 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 permits the courts, if satisfied that legislation conflicts with a right under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ to which Parliament may respond. See Campbell, T ‘Human rights: a culture of controversy’ (1999) 26 Journal of Law and Society 6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 25; et seq;

63. See Ashworth, A Human Rights, Serious Crime, and Criminal Procedure (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002) pp 71–72 Google Scholar; Allan, above n 56, pp 347–348.

64. While Arts 40–44 protect a delineated series of personal rights, Art 40.3.2 was found in Ryan v AG [1963] IR 294 to encompass the concept of unenumerated rights.

65. Whyte, G Social Inclusion and the Legal System: Public Interest Law in Ireland (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 2002) p 36.Google Scholar

66. Johnstone, G Restorative Justice – Ideas, Values, Debates (Devon: Willan Publishing, 2002) p 11.Google Scholar

67. Criminal Justice Act 2006, s 126.

68. Section 129.

69. See O'Malley, P Volatile and contradictory punishment’ (1999) 3 Theoretical Criminology 175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 176.

70. Parts 11 and 13. Comparable measures were introduced in England and Wales in the late 1990s in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002) and in the usual trend of policy transfer, these measures were emulated in Ireland.

71. Sections 113–115.

72. Children Act 2001, s 257A (as amended); Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1.

73. Criminal Justice Act 2006, s 113; Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1.

74. Children Act 2001, s 257C; Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1(1) as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002.

75. Criminal Justice Act 2006, s 115(6); Children Act 2001, s 257C(6).

76. Children Act 2001, s 257F(3); Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1(10)(b).

77. Bail Act 1997 (Commencement) Order 2000, 2000/118.

78. Garland, above n 2, pp 13–14.

79. Bottoms, above n 4, p 39.

80. Dáil Debates 21 April 1999, vol 503, col 838 per Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue.

81. Bottoms, above n 4, p 39; Mead, G The psychology of punitive justice’ (1918) 23 American Journal of Sociology 577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 580–581.

82. Bottoms, above n 4, p 39; Garland, above n 2, p 78 et seq. See O'Connell, M Changed Utterly: Ireland and the New Irish Psyche (Dublin: Liffey Press, 2001) pp 61–64.Google Scholar

83. Garland, above n 2, pp 19–20.

84. O'Donnell, I and O'Sullivan, E The politics of intolerance – Irish style’ (2003) 43 British Journal of Criminology 41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 57. It has been alleged that Ireland is ‘more akin to downtown Bogotá than a modern European capital, such is the extent of gangland murder, assaults, and violent crime’ (Labour Press Office ‘Crime figures make modern Ireland resemble downtown Bogota’ 18 July 2005) that ‘gangland law’ now exists in Ireland, ‘Rabbitte claims gangland law rules’Irish Times 16 November 2005) and that ‘gangland crime’ was ‘out of control’ (Fine Gael National Press Office Press Release ‘M50 turned into shooting gallery as gangland spirals out of control’ 26 March 2006).

85. Seanad Debates 30 October 1996, vol 149, col 142 per Mr Mulcahy.

86. TNS mrbi/155055/Irish Penal Reform Trust Public Attitudes to Prison (Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2007 Google Scholar); at 246; et seq.

87. Irish Penal Reform Trust, above n 86, pp 6–7; Kennedy and Browne, above n 45, pp 50–53.

88. Ibid, pp 43–49; Central Statistics Office Crime and Victimisation Quarterly National Household Survey 2006 (Dublin: CSO, 2007Google Scholar) tables12a and 13a.

89. Roberts et al, above n 7, p 7; Ashworth, A and Hough, M Sentencing and the climate of opinion 1996 Criminal Law Review 776 Google Scholar at 785.

90. Irish Prison Service Report 1999 and 2000 (Dublin: Irish Prison Service, 2000) p 10 Google ScholarPubMed; ;

91. Irish Prison Service Annual Report 2006, above n 90, p 14. O'Donnell, I Imprisonment and penal policy in Ireland’ (2004) 43 Howard Journal 25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 257.

92. [1994] 3 IR 593 (High Court); Heaney v Ireland [1996] 1 IR 580 (Supreme Court).

93. Quinn v Ireland (2001) 33 EHRR 264 at paras 55 and 59.

94. Committee to Review the Offences Against the State Acts Report of the Committee to Review the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939–1998 and Related Matters (Dublin: Stationery Office, 2002 Google Scholar) para 8.60.

95. DPP v Healy [1990] 2 IR 73.

96. Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966) at 470.

97. State (McCormack) v Curran [1987] ILRM 225.

98. Kavanagh v Ireland (2001) UN Doc CCPR/C/71/D/819/1998.

99. PH v Murphy [1987] IR 621.

100. Vaughan, B Book review: John Pratt Penal Populism’ (2008) 12 Theoretical Criminology 121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 123.

101. Zimring et al, above n 44, p 184.

102. Johnstone, G Penal policy making: elitist, populist or participatory?’ (2000) 2 Punishment and Society 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

103. Cf Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform Press Release ‘Minister announces 7% decrease in provisional headline crime figures’ 26 October 2004 and ‘Mandatory drug offence terms rarely imposed’ Irish Times 7 March 2006, where the presumptive minimum sentences are described as a mandatory sentences. In fact, the only mandatory sentence on the Irish statute book is a life sentence for murder (Criminal Justice Act 1990, s 2).

104. Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper on Sentencing (Dublin: Law Reform Commission, 1993) pp 61–62 Google Scholar; ; ; also see Ashworth and Hough, above n 89, p 781.