asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the serious concern at the divergence of sentences passed by the courts (details supplied) and the steps, if any, intended to bring consistency into court sentences.

15.

asked the Minister for Justice if sentences passed by the courts are monitored with a view to maintaining consistency and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.

The Constitution provides that all judges are independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, subject only to the Constitution and the law. Under our legal system, the arrangement is that the law provides generally for maximum penalties for criminal offences. The law enables the judge to exercise his discretion, within the maximum penalty, by reference to the conclusions he has reached after trying the case, hearing all the evidence, assessing the culpability and the circumstances of the accused, and so forth.

Section 36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 makes provision for meetings of district justices to discuss, inter alia, the avoidance of undue divergences in the exercise of their jurisdiction. While there is no similar provision in the case of the other courts, I am aware that over the last few years the chief justice has convened regional conferences of judges to discuss the administration of justice. The holding of such regional conferences was recommended in the Twelfth Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. I am satisfied that such meetings are a better means of achieving greater uniformity in sentences than any intervention by the Executive, which could have very undesirable consequences.

I appreciate that reply and realise how restricted the Minister is in taking action in this regard but would he consider that there is cause for concern when a charge of murder which was reduced later to manslaughter was awarded with a one year sentence, a case of rape was awarded by a two year sentence, but where a case of robbery involving a sum of £57, in which there was only slight violence, was awarded with a three-and-a-half year sentence and when the accused did not have any previous conviction from the time of reaching manhood?

That relates to the next question.

Both questions are related. Would the Minister agree that there is cause for concern concerning the question of discrimination against people from the sort of area I represent?

I am aware that meetings take place at district justice level for the purpose of avoiding any undue divirgence among district justices in the exercise of their jurisdiction. In recent years the chief justice has convened meetings in other areas. This procedure is regarded as satisfactory. As I have said, if these approaches are successful, it is best that that situation continue rather than to have interference by any government or by any Minister for Justice.

Would the Minister draw the attention of the Chief Justice to the case I have cited?

It is not in order to question the position of the courts.

Would the Minister draw the attention of the chief justice to the case I have mentioned?

I would do that if necessary.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I right in thinking that the Minister agrees that every case must stand on its own facts and that the sentence in any case must be imposed on the basis of those facts as ascertained in court and would he agree that any procedure to unify or to monitor cases in order to tie the hands of judges would be most undesirable?

There will not be any interference with the Judiciary.

The Minister has stated that regional meetings of district justices are held but can he say what proportion of the district justices attend the meetings?

That is a separate question.

Would the Minister agree that there is grave cause for concern regarding the actions of some district justices, of whom at least one or two are head cases, and should be removed to some other place?

It is not in order for the Deputy to make these references in the Dáil.

Some of these people should not be in the positions they hold.

That is not in order. The Deputy is using the House as an opportunity to criticise the courts. I am calling Question No. 16.

May I press the Minister——

I have called the next question.

There is cause for grave concern and that is why I am asking the Minister to draw the attention of the chief justice to the case I have cited.

I have dealt with that question already.

I have called on the Minister to reply to the next question.

This is a very grave case.

What did the Deputy say?

I said it was a very grave case.

I thought the Deputy said something critical of the Chair. The Dáil cannot be made a place for criticising either individual decisions of the courts or individual members of the Judiciary.