2026-03-19

12. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the assessment he has made of the impact of suspended or short custodial sentences on victims of child sexual abuse whose abuse material is circulated online, whether there is evidence that current sentencing levels act as a meaningful deterrent to child sexual abuse material offending and the legislative or policy tools he is prepared to deploy if judicial guidelines prove ineffective in producing consistent and proportionate sentences in such cases. [20212/26]

I wish to ask the Minister about the assessment he has made on the impact of suspended or short custodial sentences on victims of child abuse and the circulation of such material online, whether he has evidence that current sentencing levels act as a meaningful deterrent regarding child sexual abuse materials and what legislation policy tools he is prepared to deploy if judicial guidelines prove ineffective.

I thank Deputy O'Flynn for this question and the related Questions Nos. 20 and 22. I recognise the profound and lasting harm caused by offences involving child sexual abuse material, CSAM. What makes this offence particularly pernicious is the fact that when it is done online, there is a continuation of that abuse and damage to the child as a result of the repeated distribution of it online. That is an approach that has to be taken into account when looking at the uniqueness of this offence. As Deputy O'Flynn will be aware, there is a range of offences under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 to address all forms of such abuse. The Act provides for very severe penalties, including for the most serious offences, with a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment. Among EU member states, England and Wales, Ireland’s penalties across the 20 offences are on average higher than the vast majority of other countries. A review conducted by my Department indicates that Ireland's penalties to address child sexual abuse offences are among the most punitive in Europe and far exceed the maximum sentence requirements set out in the 2011 child sexual abuse directive. The Deputy may be aware that directive is being renegotiated at present. There needs to be a new child sexual abuse directive within the EU considering developments that have arisen. If we look at the penalties under some of the legislation, whether the 1998 Act or the 2017 sexual offences Act, we can see that the penalties range up to ten to 14 years. Under the 1998 Act, there are penalties up to life imprisonment for child trafficking and taking a child for sexual exploitation or up to 14 years for the participation of a child in pornographic performances.

I thank the Minister for the reply but I am asking whether the Department has carried out a full assessment of this. We can all call a spade a spade. Not a month has gone by where we have not read an article in a newspaper regarding suspended sentences for first-time offenders or those who have been caught for the first time when it comes to child sexual abuse images and online images. Certainly, it upsets a number of people in my constituency and Members in this House as well when we see people with large volumes of vile images being used and circulated, and walking away with a suspended sentences. I appreciate there is a precedent with the Loving case. We all are aware of that in this House. What I am getting at is whether the Minister is prepared to introduce legislation to circumvent this because District Court judges are saying they are stuck because of the precedent with the Loving case. I also appreciate that for a second-time offender, who has received a suspended sentence, that under the 1998 Act, all judges provide very stiff sentence.

Sentencing is a very complex area of a judge's function. Generally, what we do in this House is set out what the maximum sentence can be. Sometimes we put in a mandatory sentence - such as in the case for murder where there is the common law mandatory sentence of life in prison - but, in general, we set maximum sentences and give leeway to the Judiciary to decide where to go. Obviously, no offence is going to be similar. No offender is going to be similar, as Deputy O'Flynn will be aware, even in the area of child sexual abuse. Obviously, somebody who is a repeat offender would merit a much stronger custodial sentence than a person who was convicted for the first time. I am not proposing to bring forward legislation at this stage to amend the provisions in respect of sentencings that are contained within the 1998 and 2017 legislation but it is important to be aware that under the sentencing guidelines, we can and hope to see the Judiciary set out guidelines for certain types of criminal offences.

I have to say I am disappointed to hear the Minister is not prepared to bring new legislation to this House. At this stage, should we not be setting a minimum rather than just a maximum sentence given the type of crime it is? These are the most heinous images of child abuse and surely we should be providing for a minimum sentence at this stage rather than setting the maximum. I would ask the Minister to reassess that. I notice the Minister did not answer my last question about what assessments are being done. I do not know if he has that information in front of him today. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the idea that he would not introduce new legislation to set minimum sentencing rather than maximum sentencing. I know it is slightly different but it is time to reconsider whether we put in a minimum sentence or not.

The Deputy raises an interesting point about the use of mandatory minimum sentences. We did that previously in this House in respect of firearms offences where we said there was to be a mandatory sentence of, I think, five years and the Supreme Court looked at that and said it was unconstitutional because it did not give any exceptionality or discretion to a court. Introducing minimum mandatory sentences could get us into significant difficulties because we have to allow some discretion to a court. As the Deputy indicated, if it was the case - and I know these are horrific offences - that it was a very naive 18-year-old who foolishly looked at something online and saved it as compared to somebody who, for profit, was generating images of children for sexual abuse and for the purpose of generating income and who had a series of offences, those two offenders would have to be treated differently. I am concerned that if we had a minimum mandatory sentence, it could require no discretion on the part of the court.