There was a harrowing, heartbreaking letter from a victim of rape carried in The Irish Times on Monday. I do not know if the Taoiseach has read it. This person was a victim of marital rape and the letter was shocking. The author wrote bravely and with considerable dignity. Her words reflected the trauma of being sexually assaulted and the additional horror inflicted when the perpetrator is one's intimate partner. She describes being terrified for hours the night she was attacked. She wrote:

I was threatened with a knife, I was threatened with being raped a second time until I promised to stay in the relationship. For the remainder of the night I was threatened with being killed unless I promised that I would stay.

Her child witnessed this.

The crime was punished and the perpetrator was sentenced. However, the woman expresses her deep anger and distress at the news in February that the sentence of the perpetrator of her rape was to be reduced by two years. She explained that "Every day of those ... years counted for us", and how the reduction in the initial sentence has robbed her, as she puts it, of her "peace of mind and freedom". The victim believes that the judges did not take seriously enough the gravity of the offence against her, that is, the offence of marital rape. She feels abandoned and let down by the judicial system.

I have raised the issues of inconsistency, leniency and light sentences, particularly those related to sexual crime, in this House previously.

I put it to the Deputy that she may be at odds with Standing Orders here because she is speaking about a judgment in a specific, quite identifiable case. That is contrary to the precedents-----

The case is concluded.

Yes, but it is not open to us to criticise the judgments made in a duly constituted court.

I have not criticised the judgment. I have reflected the real, lived experience of a woman, as published in a newspaper. If the Ceann Comhairle would do me the courtesy of allowing me to get to the substance of my question-----

I will do that, but implicit in what the Deputy is saying is a criticism.

Implicit and explicit in what I am saying is the true, accurate, real-life reflection of the reality as experienced by this woman and many others.

It is not in order to criticise the judgment.

There are significant issues relating to inconsistencies, leniency and light sentencing, particularly when it comes to sexual crime. I believe this underlines the need for sentencing guidelines. I understand that the Judicial Council Bill 2017 contains provision for a sentencing information committee. However, it does not recommend the drafting of guidelines, and as such I believe it will prove far too weak and will therefore not have the desired effect. This sends a dangerous message to victims generally and to society at large, because the case I have described is by no means unique. It is by no means isolated. There are many others. I have previously urged the Government to face up to that fact and to take the appropriate action.

I have commended the adoption of the sentencing council model as the way forward. I have outlined its merits in terms of consistency, accountability and the appropriate involvement of stakeholders. I want to know if the Government will now adopt that approach and adopt guidelines for sentencing.

I have not seen that letter, but there was an article on the front page of The Irish Times during the week which I believe covered the case the Deputy is referring to. I read that article. Rape is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed on any individual, whether on a man or a woman, and it is particularly serious and egregious when that crime is perpetrated by a husband, wife or family member, particularly when the victim is a child. Everyone in the House will agree with those sentiments.

The Domestic Violence Bill is making its way through these Houses at the moment. The Domestic Violence Bill passed Committee Stage in this House as recently as this morning and I appeal to all parties in this House to co-operate with the Government to help get that Bill passed. The Opposition can really help the Government on this by making sure that we do not have unnecessary amendments or repetitive debates. We can all work together to get that through, and I would appeal to all parties to help us with that. In addition, the Judicial Council Bill 2017 is before the Seanad. That Bill potentially provides for the making of sentencing guidelines, which is something the Government is very keen to explore with Opposition parties.

We do, however, have to make a distinction between guidelines and mandatory sentencing. We have separation of powers in this country. Judges sit through entire cases for days and days, something we do not do. They hear all of the evidence and all sides of the story, including any mitigating factors. I am not referring to any particular case but am speaking generally. It is not right for us, having not sat through these cases and heard the evidence, to second-guess the judgments made, because, ultimately, it is the judges who sit through those cases for days and days, hear all of the evidence, all of the arguments and all of the circumstances and ultimately come up with a sentence on that basis. I do not believe that it is correct that people who do not do what judges do should second-guess their decisions. Having said that, nobody agrees with inconsistency in sentencing, and if there is room for guidelines in that area we are certainly happy to explore that with other parties.