Time for TDs to stay away from

THE credibility and judg- ment of politicians is once more in question following the per- plexing failure of political par- ties to hammer out a code of conduct on the thorny issue of making representations on be- half of criminals being sen- tenced in the courts. Few topics arouse greater public concern than the unacceptable spectacle of politicians engaging in spe- cial pleading for criminals. While a person charged with offences is entitled to call in char- acter evidence for consideration by the court, politicians should only become involved in excep- tional cases, if at all.
Controversy erupted earlier this year when it emerged that Labour TD Kathleen Lynch had writ ten to a judge in a rape case, say- ing the perpetrator came of a de- cent family. His parents had asked her to write the letter for the court, hoping it might have a bearing on the case.
Not only did the judge disre- gard Ms Lynch’s deplorable over- ture, he rightly put the contents of her letter into the public do- main. Predictably, the … inter- vention was seen by one of the rapist’s victims as a plea for miti- gation of sentence for sexual of- fences. In a forthright verdict, the judge handed down a 14-year sentence on eight counts of rape. …Ms Lynch admitted she had ac- ted inappropriately and apolo- gised for the distress caused. In the aftermath of this outrage, two rape victims wrote to all party leaders demanding new rules on the practice of TDs writing to judges on behalf of constituents. This issue goes to the heart of Ireland’s political system, a welloiled machine used by generations of public representatives to solicit votes through favours … or letters to officials on a broad range of topics. It is called ‘clientelism’.
Last year … another minister of state caused a furore by writing letters seeking early or temporary release of 10 prisoners, including a murderer. Nobody con tests the right of TDs to represent constituents in the course of their normal day-to-day business. But politicians are entering a dangerous minefield when they are perceived as seeking to influence the courts, particularly in criminal cases.
There is an onus on the political parties to set clear limits to this controversial practice. In the interests of accountability and transparency, they must also explain the failure to reach agreement on the proposal from environment minister, John Gormley, for cross-party guidelines on representations. There are compelling reasons for drawing a clear line in the sand and, once and for all, outlawing the unconscionable practice of making political representations in criminal cases. — (Sept 1)