Madam, - Minister for Justice Michael McDowell defends his "zero tolerance" drug policies by citing "the reality that we are obliged by European law to criminalise the possession of hard drugs".
While this may have provided a useful rhetorical flourish, the Minister is wrong. There is no EU legal measure obliging member-states to take any position on the possession of "hard drugs", or indeed any other type of drugs. The only such legal measure, adopted in 2004, was for the harmonisation of "minimum maximum" penalties for supply offences. Even this was set at a level well below those found in Irish law.
The European Union Drug Strategy, which itself is not legally binding, advocates a "balanced" approach to the issue of drugs, but it is in no way specific on criminal law issues or levels of penalties. While the EU Drug Strategy does call upon member-states to implement a range of activities that include taking action against drug dealers, it also calls for countries to expand the availability of services for drug users, including the types of harm-reduction programmes which the Minister refuses to implement.
Mr McDowell characterised those of us who advocate an evidence-based approach to drug use as suffering from "moral confusion". Unfortunately, in his comments this week, the Minister has yet again illustrated the factual confusion upon which he bases far too many of his policies.
Surely when it comes to addressing an issue as important as drug use, the least we can expect of our political leaders is that they get their facts straight.
- Yours, etc,
RICK LINES, Executive Director, Irish Penal Reform Trust, Parnell Square West, Dublin 1.
Madam, - The Minister for Justice's Dáil appeal to the judiciary to fully implement the minimum 10-year sentence for possession of drugs in excess of €13,000 for sale or supply is disheartening.
According to the Minister, a sentence of 10 years or more is imposed in only 21 per cent of cases. Mr McDowell says he will not be happy until the exceptional and specific derogations provided in the legislation are availed of in only a minority of cases.
However, there is an incentive in the legislation for offenders to plead guilty at an early stage to avoid the minimum 10-year sentence being imposed. It would be interesting to know in how many of the 79 per cent of cases in which a sentence of less than 10 years is imposed the offender has pleaded guilty. Research commissioned by the Department of Justice would seem to indicate that a significant number of offenders plead guilty to this offence to avoid a long-term jail sentence. This indicates that provisions are in fact operating effectively.
The gravity of drugs offences has been acknowledged by the courts on many occasions and most recently by the Chief Justice in a case in the Court of Criminal Appeal (McGinty 3/4/2006).
The provisions in the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill which would require the courts to consider (a) the offender's previous convictions and (b) the public interest in preventing drug trafficking are both unnecessary and risk imposing disproportionate and excessive punishments on offenders, many of whom are vulnerable people used by more senior players in the drugs trade.
Judges are uniquely placed to determine the appropriate penalties to be imposed in individual cases having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Their discretion should not be further circumscribed. This issue will be among those discussed at a national conference on criminal justice to be held at UCC on June 1st.
- Yours, etc,
GERARD MURPHY BL, Faculty of Law, University College Cork.