Irish sentencing data is 'limited and inadequate', says new report

The report, by researchers at the University of Strathclyde, said deficits in information were most acute at District Court level, where the overwhelming majority of cases are heard. Picture: Larry Cummins

Current data on sentencing in Ireland is “profoundly limited and inadequate”, according to a major new study.

Research commissioned by the Judicial Council said the scale of the challenge to obtain reliable data to develop sentencing guidelines for judges can only be remedied by “a systematic concerted effort underpinned by significant and sustained investment.” 

The report, prepared by a research team at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, highlighted significant problems with the current level of data available in the Republic on sentences for convicted offenders.

The report was commissioned by the council’s Sentencing Guidelines and Information Committee (SGIC) to assist it in establishing the sentencing data essential to support its statutory function of preparing sentencing guidelines.

The SGIC said it recognised meaningful sentencing guidelines were dependent on having an in-depth, empirically-grounded understanding of sentencing practice. It said it welcomed the report, and accepted its recommendations which it will “seek to implement where possible.” 

It also observed that the report had highlighted a wider sectoral issue in relation to accessing and collating data, which would require further work and collaboration.

The report found data relevant to sentencing in Ireland is not sufficiently detailed or comprehensive enough to provide an accurate portrait of current sentencing practices.

It said deficits in such information were particularly acute at District Court level, where the overwhelming majority of cases are heard.

The report said data collected by criminal justice agencies such as An Garda Síochána, and the Courts Service, while undoubtedly useful, were still inadequate for the specific purpose of providing a meaningful or accurate picture of sentencing practices.

“The kind of reliable, comprehensive and up-to-date data needed to identify sentencing patterns for particular offences is absent,” it observed.

While the report claimed data provided by the Prison Service was relatively helpful for understanding sentencing practices involving custody, it pointed out that custodial sentences only account for a small fraction of all sentences passed by the courts.

In addition, it claimed data from the Prison Service provides no information about the nature or circumstances of the offences or details about the offender, such as pleas entered and past convictions.

The study said linking the various datasets in any comprehensive and systematic way would be unlikely to provide the desired insights into “real world” sentencing practices.

Recommendations

It has recommended that the SGIC should prioritise the creation of a strategy to tackle the challenges outlined in the report, for the recording, collating and representation of data, with data on the District Court being given “a high priority.”

The study highlighted how relatively high-quality data on sentencing was available in other jurisdictions, including England and the US.

Among its main recommendations is the establishment of a research unit under the aegis of the Judicial Council that would be “properly resourced.” The report said the SGIC faces the unavoidable challenge of having to devise a system for the systematic collection and analysis of data.

It highlighted how an analysis of international research on public attitudes to sentencing found people tend to imagine that sentencing is far more lenient than it actually is.

In addition, when people are given responsibility for mock sentencing in anonymised cases, their responses were much closer to those of the actual sentencing practices than they had expected.