NOT FOR the first time Mr Justice Paul Carney has seized headlines with a controversial speech on the criminal justice system. Giving what has become an annual address to the law faculty in University College Cork, where he is adjunct professor of law, the judge again expressed disquiet this week with decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal, pointing out that it had reduced a number of sentences for manslaughter imposed by the Central Criminal Court.
There is little doubt that, in his latest comments, Mr Justice Carney was articulating public concern about violent crime and how the courts respond to it. A year ago, he was critical of the composition of the Court of Criminal Appeal and what he described as its "visitation by people on a short-term basis from the law of patents, the commercial court and chancery and matters of that kind". This time around, he also returned to another sensitive theme he has visited before - stabbings involving immigrants while drinking in their homes.
Many of Mr Justice Carney's judicial colleagues may not welcome his high profile interventions on issues arising directly from his experience on the bench. But he has raised two matters which deserve debate: the composition and role of the court hearing criminal appeals, and the change, if any, in patterns of crime as a result of immigration and what this means for public policy.
The latter issue has been raised also by Judge David Riordan, who wrote last year in the Journal of the Judicial Studies Institute that in his personal observation the proportion of foreign offenders appearing before the courts was between 15 and 20 per cent. He compared this with the experience of Irish immigrants to the UK in the 1950s. However, that article and Mr Justice Carney's remarks serve to highlight the absence of research in this area. And without reliable statistics, it is impossible to properly test the accuracy of statements which immigrant groups say reinforce negative - and false - stereotypes. Nor is it possible to engage in informed debate and appropriate policy formation.
For its part, the Court of Criminal Appeal is made up of a Supreme Court and two High Court judges on a rotating basis. This structure and practice raises issues of relevant experience and consistency in judgments. The issue of a permanent court of appeal - between the High Court and the Supreme Court - is being discussed by members of the judiciary and with the Department of Justice which could incorporate an overhaul of the Court of Criminal Appeal. If introduced, it would allow the Supreme Court to focus on constitutional issues.
Parallel with these developments, however, sentencing will remain a perennial issue. The victims of crime and their relatives are rarely satisfied with anything short of extremely heavy sentences. But this human response cannot drive the approach of society to the criminal justice system. A pilot project is already under way to collect data on sentencing and to use it to assist judges in imposing sentences. It is imperative that this is brought into the public domain and used to bring greater coherence to sentencing policy.