Senior gardai are expressing concern that the courts appear to be rejecting one of the Government's main anti-drugs initiatives, the mandatory 10-year sentence for having drugs worth more than £10,000.
Six cases have come before the courts since the legislation was enacted in May last year. In none has the mandatory sentence been handed down, even though in two cases the value of the drugs was put at over £2 million.
In two other cases the values placed on the drugs were £70,000 and £300,000 and, in the other two cases, £150,000. In all instances the drug involved was cocaine, which has become much more widely and cheaply available in Ireland and is seen as the next most addictive drug after heroin.
In all six cases brought under the 1999 Criminal Justice Act the courts have opted to impose lower sentences, invoking the opt-out clause in the legislation which provides for lighter sentences in cases where there are exceptional and specific circumstances.
In the six prosecutions brought by the Garda under the new Act the sentences handed down have been four years in three of the cases, seven years in one case and 7 1/2 years in another. A seventh case was brought but the defendant died while awaiting trial.
The 1999 Act was one of the central planks in the Government's anti-drugs initiatives and was devised and moved through the Dail by the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue.
The Minister has been forced to defend the legislation in the Dail against criticism by the Fine Gael spokesman on justice, Mr Jim O'Higgins.
Mr O'Higgins has asked the Minister if he now views the legislation as ineffective and a "PR stunt". He also raised the issue of there being no scientific or proven market basis for establishing the value of illegal drugs.
Mr O'Donoghue has made no criticism of the courts' decisions, adhering to the protocol of the Oireachtas that it would "not be appropriate" for him to comment on any judgment.
However, he stoutly defended his legislation, saying he believed it would "in due course be seen as being an effective mechanism for dealing with serious drugdealing and trafficking".
He would not be drawn on the fact that in all six cases before the end of the last law term the courts had found there were exceptional and specific circumstances to avoid imposing the minimum sentence.
He said that under the 1999 Act the courts "must impose a minimum 10-year sentence unless it is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence or the person convicted of the offence.
"Accordingly, it is a matter for the courts to decide if the exceptional and specific circumstances provided for in the Act exist in any particular case. It would not be appropriate for me as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to comment on particular court decisions in this respect."
Mr O'Donoghue said that any question of appealing against "an unduly lenient sentence" was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, "who is independent in his functions". The DPP is understood to be considering appeals against leniency in several drugs-related cases.
Mr O'Donoghue was also challenged on the value of his "zero tolerance" policy towards drugs if the minimum sentence strategy was not working.
He referred to his July 1998 speech to the Dail on the introduction of the 10-year minimum sentence Bill in which he said: "Ultimately, the test of `zero tolerance' will be at the end of the term of this Government as to whether people feel safer on the streets and in their homes than they did before.
"The Government has no plans to depart generally from existing arrangements but it believes that because of the unique nature of the drugs trade and the widespread harm it causes to the community, mandatory sentences are warranted.
"We are talking about someone involved in the possession for supply of illegal drugs to the value of £10,000. We are dealing by definition with someone who plays a substantial part in the supply of illegal drugs.
