Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) (Amendment) (Work Equipment) Bill 2026: Second Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-18
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I thank Senators P.J. Murphy, Duffy and Kennelly for bringing forward this important legislation. It is also very useful to hear of the direct experience of Senator Murphy arising from his work as a joiner. Sometimes people do not realise the direct experience Members of the Seanad and Dáil have and it is very important we hear Senator Murphy's direct experience given that he has worked in that area for so long.
We all know the theft of tools and work equipment has serious repercussions. For many tradespeople, whether they be plumbers, joiners like Senator Murphy, electricians, carpenters, mechanics and other skilled workers, the tools of their trade are not simply possessions; they are essential to earning a livelihood. When those tools are stolen, the impact is immediate and profound.
There is an anxiety that comes with being targeted, work is delayed, contracts are jeopardised and in some cases individuals find themselves unable to continue working at all. For small contractors, farmers and self-employed tradespeople, the cost of replacing equipment can run to many thousands of euro and it can have a devastating impact on the businesses that many people have spent years building up. It is a particularly pernicious type of criminal offence since it targets somebody right in his or her job. One of the Senators mentioned earlier that when you target the belongings and equipment a person requires to do their job, you are really attacking the integrity of that person as well. That is before we even consider the loss of income and insurance cost implications that arise from this.
As public representatives, we regularly deal with constituents who have been the victims of such crimes, and the distress caused is evident. I think there is a shared understanding across the House of the importance of this issue and the Government will not be opposing the Bill. I am very much encouraged by the fact that across the House there is broad recognition that this issue needs to be identified, highlighted and if possible responded to with legislation.
I would also like to identify some issues in respect of where we are at present in terms of legislation that exists. It is very important that as lawmakers in this House and in the Lower House we are aware of what laws are there before we start considering or enacting further laws. As Senators will be aware, there are already property offences that apply to work equipment theft. Under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, a provision provides for a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment in the case of offences of theft and the handling of stolen property. Where a work equipment theft involves a burglary, the maximum sentence is 14 years, and in the case of robbery and aggravated burglary, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. When imposing sentences, judges are not limited to considering the monetary value of the work equipment. They also are entitled to take into account the impact the theft had on the individual's work life and the emotional distress caused as a result of it, and those are factors that should be taken into account by judges when they are determining sentences.
We also need to examine, and it is very important to hear, the evidence of Senators from the areas they are from and the impact this crime is having on their local communities. There are also official statistics from the Central Statistics Office that show there has been a decrease in reported incidents of robbery, burglary and theft-related offences in general. The incidence of theft of farming equipment also indicates a decline in such offences. Simply because there is a decline in incidence or reportage, that does not mean this matter cannot be dealt with legislatively or that it requires the consideration of the Oireachtas. At the same time, it is important to point out that operational data provided by the Garda shows an increase in charges for these offences. This is, in part, as a result of targeted operations and initiatives. I was interested to hear what Senator Murphy had to say in respect of the individual with 26 former convictions who received a suspended sentence. Obviously, it is sentences like that, although we do not know the detail of it, that make Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas want to come forward with stronger legislation because where we do see recidivist offenders, we want to make sure they are sent a message that their ongoing repeat offending will not be tolerated by the State.
As Senators will know, the Garda operates a number of crime prevention initiatives, many of which have been spoken about here, and proactive policing operations specifically aimed at burglary and related offences. One of the most significant is Operation Thor, which was launched in 2015 - it is has now been in place for over ten years - and was designed to target organised crime groups through co-ordinated enforcement activity, intelligence-led policing and crime prevention measures informed by the latest burglary trends. Over the decade since Operation Thor was introduced, burglary and related offences have declined significantly, demonstrating the impact that sustained and targeted policing operations can have in addressing these types of crimes. I know Senators here will agree with me and be aware that we can change the law, but the most important factor to deter or detect criminal activity is that the Garda is fully resourced and active in the community to ensure that if these crimes occur, people are brought to justice promptly.
Alongside enforcement activity, the Garda also places a strong emphasis on crime prevention and public awareness. Members across the organisation promote preventative measures in their day-to-day engagement with communities, and there are also Garda members who are specifically trained to carry out the role of crime prevention officer. These officers provide expert advice to individuals, businesses and community groups on practical steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of theft and burglary. Importantly, there is now a crime prevention officer attached to each Garda division, ensuring that this expertise is available to communities throughout the State.
There are also practical tools available to assist members of the public in protecting their property. Many of them have been mentioned by Senators this evening. The property app developed by the Garda allows individuals to record and index items such as bicycles, laptops, tools and farm machinery. The app enables users to record identifying information associated with their property, which can be extremely helpful in the event that items are stolen and later recovered. It also provides a simple way of reporting stolen property to the Garda. The application is free to download and forms part of a broader effort to support property marking and traceability.
In addition, local community policing units regularly organise property-marking engagement days, as has been mentioned, where members of the public can bring valuable items to be marked and registered. These initiatives are frequently promoted through An Garda Síochána’s community networks and social media channels, and they represent a practical way of helping people to safeguard equipment such as tools that are essential to their livelihoods.
These measures also sit within a broader policy framework aimed at improving safety in rural communities. The rural safety plan, launched last September by the Minister of State, Deputy Niall Collins, brings together and strengthens the various strands of work being carried out in relation to rural safety. The plan was developed by my Department in conjunction with the national rural safety forum, and its vision is to ensure that people and communities in rural Ireland both feel safe and are safe in their homes, their places of work and their wider local environments.
The plan identifies four key priority areas of focus: community safety and engagement, property crime, roads policing and animal welfare crime. Through structures such as the national rural safety forum, community alert schemes and the development of new community safety partnerships, An Garda Síochána is continuing to listen to and work closely with communities to build safer places in which to live and work across the country.
It is encouraging to see the positive impact these collaborative initiatives are already having in strengthening safety and confidence in our communities. Taken together, these initiatives demonstrate that the response to theft and burglary is not confined to legislation alone. Effective prevention, strong community engagement and targeted enforcement are all essential components of tackling these offences and supporting those who are affected by them.
I will now make some observations in respect of the Bill. As I have said, the Government will not oppose it and it will go through with Government support. I want to make some observations that I hope will be taken constructively, as what we do not want to do is enact legislation that will be struck down by the courts. Senator Byrne alluded to what happened in the Wayne Ellis case. These are some recommendations I have in respect of the Bill and I will get legal advice from the Attorney General in respect of this.
The Bill provides for a mandatory minimum sentence and does not provide discretion for the sentencing court to not apply this minimum. As a starting point, the setting by the Oireachtas of minimum rather than maximum sentences is very much the exception. We need to be aware of this when we are dealing with the Bill. Sometimes mandatory sentences are applied. We apply them for murder. If somebody is convicted of murder, they face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. We also have mandatory minimum sentencing in respect of certain drugs offences. What was noticeable in the case of Wayne Ellis, which was a case where the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory sentence of five years for possession of guns, was that there were indications that presumptive sentencing is something we can do as an Oireachtas. However, we know the courts are very defensive when it comes to what they see as unnecessary or unlawful interference by the Oireachtas in their sentencing prerogative.
We entrust the courts with the responsibility of determining what is an appropriate sentence based on the facts of the cases before them. The courts will take into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances. As I am sure Senator Murphy and others will appreciate, there may be examples of people who have been involved in the theft of work equipment where their responsibility is much more egregious than is the case of other individuals who are minnows and who were put up to it by more senior figures.
We know that minimum sentences are used sparingly. It would be a change to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in respect of a work equipment theft offence, the gravity of which is unknown. I have to point out that some people who would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence may not be the people directing the crime and we need to recognise there could be serious gangland figures directing the theft of work equipment. They are the ones the criminal justice system wants to target.
Where minimum sentences are used, they are generally prescribed on a presumptive basis, where judges may impose a lower sentence if exceptional and specific circumstances make it appropriate to do so. The Bill Senator Murphy is putting forward does not do this. My recommendation, and I will liaise with colleagues in respect of this, is that in order to be enacted the Bill will require amendments, including an amendment to refer to a presumptive sentence. The Bill, and Senator Byrne will be of assistance in drafting these amendments, will require a provision that states there may be exceptional circumstances in which the court can depart from the mandatory minimum sentence. If we do not do this, and if we proceed to enact it, my fear is that what will happen is what happened in the Wayne Ellis case. So Members are aware, back in 2019 the Supreme Court struck down a non-discretionary five-year minimum sentence on a limited group of offenders as unconstitutional. This was the Wayne Ellis case. I do not have the written advice of the Attorney General yet, but I know from speaking to him about matters similar to this that he has a concern in respect of frailties, whereby if legislation does not include presumptive and exceptional grounds to depart from a minimum sentence, the courts could strike it down.
I have to be frank with Senators that there is a constitutional frailty in respect of the Bill. Senator Boyhan may have alluded to this earlier. We need to ensure that we do not enact something that will create an easy victory for individuals being prosecuted before the courts under our new law who would be allowed to take a constitutional action which, in all likelihood, would succeed. This does not mean we cannot work together in respect of this legislation. A lot of good work has gone into it. I commend Senator Murphy particularly on the fact that this issue will now get coverage as a result of introducing this legislation. It is very important that Senators and Deputies introduce legislation. That is our primary function. Let us recognise it by introducing legislation in which we highlight an issue of real concern to our constituents. I will work with Senator Murphy and other Senators in respect of the Bill to try to polish it up so we can achieve the ultimate objective we all want.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-03-18/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:44+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-03-18