I have a point of order. A Chathaoirligh, I ask you to provide clarity on your interpretation. When Senator Crowe raised the issue of a sentence, you said that members should not comment on a sentence that is handed down. I can fully understand if a court case is ongoing that we should not comment in this House. However, when a decision has been handed down, I think, as Members, we should be free, if we believe that a sentence is inappropriate, to comment on it. Members of the Judiciary will often comment on actions or inactions of Members of the Oireachtas; I appreciate that it is separate. However, in this case a decision has been handed down.

You will note that last week when Senator McDowell and I raised the statement of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, I was very appreciative that you allowed us to proceed when criticising the interpretation there. I would like some clarity on what we are allowed. When a sentence that we feel is inappropriate has been handed down, I think it is appropriate that Members should be allowed to express our views.

Under the Constitution, the European courts are not under our jurisdiction. Therefore, what Members say about courts in other countries does not come under my remit. I am taking the precedent from rulings of the Chair in respect of policy. This is the important part. This House is about debate and about people discussing the issues of the day. Members may and should talk about issues in a general sense even on judicial policy and judicial rulings. However, when it becomes specifically identifiable, because of the separation of powers, the rulings from previous Chairs have been that those specific criticisms should not be entered into in the House.

As the Senator outlined, his criticism related to the policy. He said he was concerned about lenient sentences for people, which is general comment that is quite legitimate, who had committed multiple crimes and seemed to get off with light sentences. That is a policy issue and it is quite legitimate to discuss it in the House. However, it is the rulings from previous Cathaoirligh. It is not in Standing Orders, so it is a precedent set by previous Cathaoirligh. If it relates to particular sentences that relate to particular judges, the rulings from previous Cathaoirligh have been that it would not be appropriate. However, I am open to Members changing the Standing Orders if they wish to put it to the committee on procedure, but it would bring us into a number of other more difficult areas. I am conscious of the separation of powers. The Senator was quite right to raise the issue but, obviously, he was raising a particular case and I am just going by the ruling of previous Cathaoirligh and rulings in the Dáil.

I appreciate that. I do not believe it is appropriate that we should necessarily criticise the judges, but if we feel that a sentence was inappropriate, and I am sure Members can think of such instances, I believe that once it has been handed down we should be entitled to comment on that.

Thank you. By the way, this is a forum for debate so I am quite happy to engage on the issue of a point of order. I call Senator Crowe.

I thank my colleague, Senator Malcolm Byrne, for the support. I am a little confused. As you outlined, a Chathaoirligh, I was referring to the leniency of the particular cases. I did not refer to a specific case, but said it in general. It is an issue in Galway city and county, as you are aware, but it is also an issue across the country. I am still not clear about why I was not allowed to make the full contribution. In what way was it not right or appropriate to discuss it in the House, as Senator Malcolm Byrne mentioned? There is separation from the Judiciary, and that is fine. Naturally, we cannot get into individual specific cases. We accept that, but that is not what I was saying. With respect, I seek clarification from you, a Chathaoirligh, or from the Clerk of the Seanad.

That is why I made the clarification. The issue is if you make somebody or a case identifiable. When Members bring out the detail of a case, for example, an 83-year-old lady, that would stray into the area where it would make the individual case identifiable. However, for the benefit of the House I will circulate the ruling from previous Cathaoirligh and from the Chair in the Dáil. I want debate in this House. I want Members to be able to raise the issues of the day that people are talking about on the street. If we cannot talk about them here when everybody else is talking about them, it does not make this House as relevant as it should and as it needs to be. Yes, by all means every debate and issue should be brought to this House, but I am conscious of the separation of the Judiciary, the rulings of previous Cathaoirligh and making particular instances identifiable, which could bring us into a situation. Bear in mind that we have introduced new Standing Orders on foot of the Kerins case which define further what Members have a right to talk about in the House, to protect Senators from spurious accusations.

I rise to support you, a Chathaoirligh. It began with a specific instance where, perhaps, a specific victim might have been referenced. I listened carefully and agreed with Senator Crowe's statement to the House, to be fair. He moved it to the policy issue. I would extend that to say that perhaps we need mandatory requirements regarding specific categories, home invasions and so forth. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions always has the opportunity to appeal the severity or lack of severity of a sentence, and for us to comment on any individual would undermine that and undermine the hearing of that case. We must be fastidious in keeping that very strict boundary in respect of the possibility of us interfering with the operation of the courts and being seen to criticise a judge. That is what distinguishes us from other countries that appear to interfere. The separation of powers is what distinguishes our democracy and holds it above many others, much to my pride. I support you, a Chathaoirligh.

Thank you. I am glad Senators raised the issue because it is helpful to every Member to understand. The issue here is making sure that anything that is said in this House is not used to prevent some victim in the future getting justice because something that is said here is used by a criminal as a defence in an appeal case or it prevents the DPP from pursuing a more appropriate sentence. However, I will circulate the ruling. The problem is that it is a fine line. I want every Member to be aware that policy and the issues of the day should be discussed in this House. I want them to be discussed here because that is what this House and the Order of Business are about, but I want us to be careful where it gets into that area where we could end up interfering with future judicial action.

I thank the Senator for raising the point of order. I call the Deputy Leader.