I highlight what Mr. Tom O'Malley of the National University of Ireland, Galway, calls the "quiet revolution" in sentencing practice in the courts that has occurred recently. In three cases in which judgment was delivered on 18 March the Court of Criminal Appeal, for the first time, effectively introduced sentencing guidelines. This is something for which many legal academics and practitioners have been calling for some time. The three offences concerned involved the repeated sexual abuse of children, the infliction of serious harm and the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The latter cases have wide-ranging significance and the Court of the Criminal Appeal, for the first time, stated superior courts had an important role in providing sentencing guidelines, including the provision of benchmarks for judges in sentencing. The court reviewed previous decisions and indicated relevant factors that should determine sentences before indicating that, for certain firearms offences, those at the lower end of the scale should attract a sentence of between five and seven years, that those in the middle range should attract a sentence of between seven and ten years and that those at the top of the scale should attract a sentence of between ten and 14 years. In the case of offences causing serious harm, an offence that can attract a life sentence, the court decided that offences at the lower end of the scale should attract a sentence of two to four years, that those in the middle range should attract a sentence of four to seven and a half years and that those at the top of the scale should attract a sentence of seven and half to 12 years. It also accepted that some offences might justify the imposition of a life sentence. Of major significance is the decision in the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Z, in which the court decided that there was no reason the Director of Public Prosecutions could not inform sentencing in court on the severity of the incident as compared to previous cases. I highlight this issue as the Seanad should welcome this new practice which brings greater clarity and consistency for victims and families.