The latest anti-crime package is unlikely to have any serious effect on the level of gangland activity, writes Conor Lally,Crime Correspondent
Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has published his much-leaked legislation aimed at countering gangland crime. He has said gangland represents one of the greatest threats to our democracy since the advent of paramilitarism in the 1970s.
He says the new legislation is proportionate to the threat we face.
"It is no use willing the end of gangland activities unless we will the means," he said.
The question now is: does the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 represent those means? Almost certainly it does not.
It is difficult to believe any gangland criminal had a disturbed night's sleep last night due to the publication of the new legislation.
The measures come in response to an upsurge in gangland activity last year in which some innocent people were murdered or taken hostage in the course of so-called tiger robberies.
Much of the public debate triggered by those crimes concentrated on two areas.
Firstly, there was the judiciary's apparent unwillingness to impose mandatory 10-year sentences for drug dealing in commercial quantities. Secondly, commentators were perplexed at the ability of serious criminals to secure bail even when charged with very serious offences.
In both instances the blame was being laid at the door of the judiciary.
Enshrined in existing legislation there is, effectively, a safety valve which allows judges not to impose the so-called mandatory 10-year sentence for those convicted of dealing in commercial quantities of drugs. It was intended that judges could activate this safety valve in special cases.
But these exceptional cases have become the norm. In 2005, of the 80 drug dealers who appeared before the courts and were eligible for the 10-year term, just 10 received the sentence.
Clarification on what defines a special case is contained in the new legislation. However, Mr McDowell conceded the advice he received from the Attorney General was that the legislation could go no further.
It means we are left with a situation where a judiciary which has repeatedly proven itself unwilling to be as strict on sentencing as it could be is left with the same discretion it has so often exercised.
The same applies to the new provisions on the denial of bail. Gardaí can object, but the courts are left with their discretion to ignore this.
And faced with the knowledge that serious charges, up to and including murder, often take several years to reach the courts, it is difficult to see how the judiciary is going to pursue any policy other than the granting of bail as frequently as at present.
The new legislation also includes provisions under which gardaí can detain gangland suspects for up to seven days without charge. Currently that period is 72 hours in relation to firearms offences.
But it is stretching credulity to think the longer detention period is going to break down serious criminals who have proven adept at picking a spot on the wall to stare at in silence until their detention expires.
New provisions have also been unveiled which will allow a court to draw inferences from a suspect declining to answer questions in Garda custody. But this will not amount to evidence of guilt.
The new elements that may well prove most useful are those based on US anti-racketeering laws. Any criminal convicted of drug dealing, firearms offences or other gangland activity will face an enhanced sentence if they reoffend within seven years of release.
The drugs trade is now valued at about €1 billion annually. Those caught dealing are being treated leniently by the courts. And since 1998 only 15 per cent of the estimated 120 gun homicides in the State resulted in conviction.
These factors add up to one simple message for criminals: the rewards are high and the risks are low.
Mr McDowell has resourced the Garda to record levels. And he can honestly claim to have reformed the force more than any of his predecessors.
But the only way to tackle the subculture of gangland crime is to reduce the numbers becoming involved in it. This requires massive expenditure on at-risk children on the vast estates of Dublin or Limerick when these children are still at preschool age.
Aiming the resources at containment rather than prevention is simply not working.