Matt Carthy
Cavan-Monaghan · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026": "and: further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to: — existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of tempor…”
“10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them.”
“In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Min…”
“It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others.”
“We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court.”
“She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,467 lines we hold for Matt Carthy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 26 of 30.
“I have to dispute virtually every single thing the Minister of State has just said. I know this area has just moved into his Department. The State has paid out billions of euro with virtually no transparency. There have been increasing reports of companies with no track record at all being awarded contracts to the tunes of millions of euro. A recent report concerned a company that had been awarded a contract to provide 277 beds for IPAS applicants at Dundrum, County Tipperary. The company, which is named Utmasta Limited and was set up three months ago with one director who is based in Majorca, is set to be paid millions of euro of Irish taxpayers' money. Does that make sense to the Minister of State? Has that contract been reviewed to ascertain how this could come about?”
“We have had a small café becoming one of the largest financial beneficiaries of IPAS contracts. Do we know how many companies, benefiting to the tune of millions from what is a flawed system, are located or owned by corporations outside of the State? These are serious questions, and when talking about €1 billion of public money, the public has a right to answers. The Minister of State has not given clarification as to whether a review of the public expenditure accounts will be carried out. Will he do so?”
“I have been raising the issue of profiteering within the IPAS system since I was an MEP almost a decade ago. I raised it as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. The Minister of State said we spent €1 billion on IPAS accommodation last year. What he did not say was that most of that money was paid to private operations. He did not answer the question as to whether he agreed there was a need for a value for money audit and full scrutiny of those IPAS contracts. There are serious questions. Do we know, for example, how many providers that are making millions of euro actually acquired the properties being used at a discount through NAMA? Do we know how many newly established companies that have no track record secured these types of contract? How do we have a situation where companies have just completely repurposed overnight?”
“The Minister of State knows there has been massive profiteering in the provision of accommodation for those seeking asylum. People have become millionaires overnight providing what is sometimes unsuitable accommodation in what I would call a deeply flawed system, while many communities have lost vital local amenities, including hotels. Will the Minister of State outline the total amount of public money that was spent on IPAS accommodation in 2024, what the projected spend is for this year, and what plans he has to initiate a value for money review into the contracts for the provision of IPAS accommodation?”
“I do not know if the Minister can give us an estimated total for this year yet, but what we do know is that Garda numbers have declined in relative terms over the past number of years, and communities have paid a price for that in terms of Garda visibility. Will the Minister ensure that when the new Garda Commissioner is in place, he or she will be provided with the resources and policy changes necessary to ensure we have the number of gardaí that are required so that the Commissioner's term can be a success?”
“That is important, and it is regrettable that we have a situation where senior gardaí are saying - if not on the record, then letting it be known - that the position is not tenable for them. Those issues must be addressed. What the public at large wants to see is an improvement in Garda visibility in their communities. We need a clear plan for putting more gardaí, particularly community gardaí, on our streets in our communities. The Minister will know that, in March, the current Commissioner, Mr. Drew Harris, said it was simply not possible to achieve the Government's goal of having 1,000 new members attested in 2025. He said the maximum would be 800.”
“Therefore, is the Minister satisfied that there is now a prospect of somebody with no policing experience whatsoever taking over the role of Garda Commissioner? Many people are quite surprised that that is even an option. I would like the Minister to comment on that.”
“I thank the Minister. I join with him in expressing our condolences to the family, friends and Garda colleagues of Garda Kevin Flatley. The outpouring of grief we have seen from his local community points to the fact that Garda Flatley represented all that is good about An Garda Síochána and its membership. Regarding the new Garda Commissioner, I agree with the Minister that the Commissioner is only as strong as his or her members. Clearly, there has been somewhat of a breakdown in trust - that is putting it as diplomatically as I can - between many Garda members and higher echelons of management. That is why the appointment of a new Commissioner must mark a new beginning and a new phase in the operational issues of An Garda Síochána that we know are there and must be addressed.”
“The selection competition for identifying and recommending to the Government a person for appointment as Garda Commissioner has been delayed as a result of the Government's failure to enact the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act. This is a crucially important position in our society and particularly in our policing services. Will the Minister give an assurance to the Dáil that a new Garda Commissioner will be in place by 1 September of this year when the current Commissioner's contract ends?”
“There must be proper investment in water, wastewater and energy infrastructure as well as in the planning system and the courts.”
“In towns and villages across counties Cavan and Monaghan, we have local developers ready to build desperately needed houses. The reason they cannot is because of this Government's failures. In towns like Kingscourt and villages like Clontibret, builders are set to build houses but are prevented from doing so because local wastewater treatment plants are not up to standard. Where the plans do exist to upgrade the plants, the timeframe is years away. Where plans are not in place, we are talking about decades if the failed approach by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael continues. This means a worsening housing crisis, ever-increasing house prices and more and more of our young people leaving Ireland because it is the only chance they have of sourcing a home they can afford. Sinn Féin is demanding action. The incompetence must end.”
“Decades of failures by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments to plan for the expansion of key water, wastewater and electricity infrastructure is part of the reason the same Governments have failed to get to grips with the housing crisis. I asked the then Minister for housing, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, about these issues in 2023. Typical to form, he denied there was a problem at all. He replied to me saying there was enough water supply and wastewater treatment at Uisce Éireann plants to support the need for housing developments. He was wrong; it was clearly not the case. This was symptomatic of his approach and of the inability of this Government to plan and prepare at all. In my constituency, the Government's failure to address water and wastewater facilities has seen delays in delivering much-needed housing.”
“It is time to revitalise our town centres. That means more gardaí, more amenities, more support for local businesses and less for those that do not have the interests of the community at the core of what they do. That is the message coming from Carrickmacross and all over Ireland. It is time that the Government heeded that message. It is time to invest in our town centres. This legislation is a small part of all that.”
“What that means for Carrickmacross and towns like it is supporting businesses that bring vibrancy and commercial activity back to the urban centres. In our town and lots of others we have too many vape shops and mobile phone repair shops. What we need is a proper mix of amenity and businesses in our town centres. They need support for that to happen. There is a serious problem. If, for example, a local business team wants to bring a night club or another activity to a vacant business in Carrickmacross or a similar town, it will receive no support. It will probably receive blockages from the official system. However, if it decides to turn that same building into an IPAS centre, it will secure a substantial State funding package. That is not fair on anyone involved, except the beneficiary who is making a profit. That approach has to end.”
“It should not be tolerated at any time but it certainly should not be tolerated in the middle of a housing crisis. If the Government values our communities and those people who hold them together, who coach our children's sports teams, who run our youth clubs, who organise local festivals, who are part of Tidy Towns committees, who care for the elderly and isolated, then Government must support them by investing in local facilities and amenities. People should not have to fight and campaign for basic amenities such as recreational or sports facilities and safe town centres. It is time for proper investment and rejuvenation of towns and villages. That includes investment in public spaces, tackling dereliction and ensuring proper services and facilities are in place.”
“People lived in the centre of the town above shops, some family businesses thrived for generations and people knew their local gardaí. This is no longer the case. It is crucial that our towns do not shut and just become departed after 6 p.m. In addition to ensuring people can actually live in our towns and villages, it means supporting a vibrant night-time economy. For this to work, people need to feel safe going into our towns and cities at night. That will not be the case unless we have enough gardaí to police our streets and ensure there is a visible Garda presence. Dereliction simply should not be tolerated nor should slum landlords. They damage the fabric of our towns and villages. Sinn Féin has been raising this for a long time.”
“Businesses have closed under the pressure of rising operating costs, including energy and insurance costs, and little or nothing has been done to address those rising costs. Small local shops have gone too, replaced sometimes by large supermarkets on the edges of towns. We had the closure of Bose, a significant employer in our area, and in 2019 to much fanfare, the then Minister for enterprise cut a ribbon and claimed credit for 60 new jobs that would come to that Bose site. Those jobs never came, and subsequent Ministers have hidden from any accountability since. We learned this week that factory is up for sale again. Some of the most prominent buildings in our town centre lie idle. There was a time when any good sized local town had a cinema, theatre and hotels.”
“Despite being invited, An Garda Síochána, council executive staff and other political representatives from other parties failed to take the opportunity to come to listen and respond to those concerns. Like many towns, Carrickmacross has been a great town and continues to have businesses and local community organisations doing their best to make the town the best possible place to live, work and raise a family. The town has some unique challenges but it also faces issues that are familiar to many areas. Local services have closed down. Local authorities have been underfunded. The abolition of the town council was one of the most stupid and counterproductive political decisions in modern times.”
“We need a wider plan for how we make villages, towns and cities better places to live, work and to visit; how we support a vibrant hospitality sector; how we ensure that villages, towns and cities are safer and more welcoming places; how we invest in public spaces and amenities; how we help small local businesses to get started and to thrive; how we ensure there are proper public services, including access to GP services, good public transport and enough gardaí; and how we ensure that towns have amenities like swimming pools and youth clubs. Unfortunately, the policies of successive Governments have hollowed out our villages, rural towns and city centres. This week I held a public meeting in my home town of Carrickmacross to allow local people air their concerns about community safety and other issues.”
“The simple fact is that the Government should have regularised the position in respect of outdoor seating areas on a permanent basis long before now. I know it has been indicated that this will be done but there is no good reason for it to have taken so long. These provisions are good for the hospitality sector and should be supported. We have witnessed how outdoor seating in hospitality can breathe life into many streets and town centres. That is a positive thing without question, although we also have to be cognisant of other businesses in areas. It also gives us a glimpse of what might be possible if we do more to revitalise urban communities, rural towns and villages. The approach to this issue should not be taken in isolation.”
“As the Minister said, the motion seeks to extend the provision for the consumption of alcohol in relevant outdoor seating as provided for in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act for another six months until the end of November. The Act introduced changes in the law to allow for the sale and consumption of alcohol in relevant outdoor seating areas where those outdoor seating areas had been permitted by the local authorities on public land or were on private land next to the licensed premises. While Sinn Féin supports the extension of this legislation, there is something dysfunctional about the fact that five years on from the start of the Covid pandemic we are dealing with extending a provision of an Act that was effectively emergency legislation brought in during the pandemic.”
“The Oireachtas must insist, and I make this case very strongly, that Ms Marjorie Farrelly, the author of this report explains the omissions in her findings, including why the submissions of the general solicitor for minors and wards of court, made on behalf of Grace, were not included in the final report. It is the very least that Grace deserves.”
“As the incoming chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, I will see to it that this committee has a role in scrutinising the Farrelly report, including the revelation by Marie-Claire Butler, the general solicitor for minors and wards of court, that extensive submissions made on behalf of Grace to the Farrelly commission were not included in the final report. To silence Grace in this way after everything she has been through is nothing short of appalling. The report is a disservice to Grace, to all those who cared for her, to other children and young people in care and to those whistleblowers who spoke out.”
“Grace was not visited by a social worker for the first six years. There were very serious and credible allegations of abuse, including sexual abuse which the commission has chosen to discount. The commission has failed to address serious questions over why Grace was returned to the foster home after a decision had been made to remove her following accusations of abuse and neglect. We need to know why the commission did not investigate the experiences of the other children and young people who went through the foster home in question. The case is a litmus test of how we treat the most vulnerable in our society, how we protect children and vulnerable adults and we are failing.”
“I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. It is always good to see a Monaghan man in charge. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Farrelly report. So many of us from all parties in the Oireachtas are just appalled by what happened to Grace but also by the failure to deliver the justice and truth she deserves through the report of the Farrelly commission. This is a very lengthy and costly report. It is 2,000 pages long, took eight years to complete and cost €14 million but it fails to deliver answers in relation to the appalling treatment of Grace who was a vulnerable ten year old child when she entered care. There must be answers and accountability. The facts of this case are hard to believe. The house where Grace was placed was never assessed and never formally recognised as a foster home.”
“If a post makes an aggressive or untrue statement about somebody else, that person should be entitled, through the courts, to find out who it is who made that statement. My only concern is the bar set for a judge to make a determination that there needs to be a belief that the case will be won. It is almost like hearing the case beforehand. Other than that, this is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the Minister will look at the criteria. It should be easier if somebody has been abused, lied about or defamed by an anonymous account to get the identity of the person or persons behind that account.”
“I fully support this amendment. It is restrictive in terms of allowing people to go through the Circuit Court to seek the identity of those behind online anonymous publications or posts. Social media in particular is one of the great advances of our time. The right to anonymity on social media can in many ways be positive and allows people to express themselves and engage in public participation and debate in a manner they may not be in a position to do otherwise. There are those, however, who use platforms such as social media under pseudonyms or anonymous accounts, sometimes claiming to represent an entire people or entire town or place and making scurrilous untrue claims and sometimes defamatory claims.”
“That will allow me to finish by saying that while the Bill seeks to address the issue of defamation laws being abused to make people fearful of public participation, abuse, even in terminology or through sloganeering, will not result in balanced defamation laws. In fact, it could tip the scales too far in the other direction and perhaps make people fearful of vindicating their own name, which would be the exact opposite of what we do.”
“In many respects, it is very different from everything else because the victim has to essentially prove his or her case in all these instances, and then there are others who will use the system that is there, and we know this. There have been some very high-profile cases where media outlets in this State have been afraid to publish what are facts, essentially, because they are afraid of the financial outworking of that due to powerful interventions. All these things have to be done. We have to get it right. On balance, for the most part, I think this section of the legislation does that, but I just make those points. I see Deputy Gannon coming in now.”
“Some commentators suggest that, for example, any political representative who tries to clear his or her name through the court is engaged in a SLAPP. To suggest, for example, that a county councillor representing a south inner city area in the Minister's constituency who feels that their good name has been impinged and who goes to court is equivalent to a multibillionaire who can have any number of senior counsel bringing an organisation to court is just ludicrous. It actually undervalues just how important it is that we tackle the issue of SLAPPs. It goes back to the point I have made repeatedly. No media organisation - in fact, nobody - should tell lies, things that are not true, about others.”
“-----be here later? SLAPP suits, which is I think what this section deals with, are of course an abhorrent attempt to place fear of financial ruin particularly on ordinary people or to scare off media outlets that might have a limited budget from taking part in either public life or public discourse. They have no place in a democracy. There cannot be selective prohibition of freedom of expression simply because there is a fear of a malign actor using defamation proceedings for that purpose where defamation has not taken place but there are deep pockets or sometimes strength. It is right and entirely appropriate that we should seek to address this and prohibit that. I do have a couple of slight concerns. I have seen definitions of SLAPPs being thrown around that are not definitions of SLAPPs.”
“Are we then to say that repeating those defamatory statements, which would have been considered to have been defamatory in the first place, in Ireland is to be facilitated because of that previous decision, if I am making the question clear? I appreciate what the Minister is trying to do in terms of being practical in a modern context but has he given consideration as to whether the appropriate response would effectively facilitate what may in fact be defamatory statements under Irish law because they were not found to be defamatory in another law? I would appreciate the Minister's thoughts on that.”
“The section relates to it being a defence to defamation to give a fair report of proceedings or judgments of courts in this State or in the North of our country. It extends this protection to the courts of any state, essentially. There is a certain practicality to this, particularly in the context of media essentially having become internationalised. I would appreciate it, however, if the Minister could speak to whether he believes that extending this to any state is practical or perhaps even fair and whether he has a fear that there is a risk that this would effectively lower the bar. Say, for example, a person fails in a defamation case that might be rightly taken in the United States. The United States has a much higher bar to get over in terms of defamation.”
“I could certainly see an area where that would be very contested, and I know members of the legal profession will probably be licking their lips at that prospect. We then have the third standard, which concerns for-profit entities, which is at least clear in what can be constituted in that there has to be a financial impact, but again, once there is no provable financial impact, you can essentially say what you like. I am not opposing this section of the Bill at this stage but I am raising serious concerns. This is one of the reasons Committee Stage is better in a committee room where we are able to thrash these things back and forward. There are particular concerns about this section but the Minister has given an assurance that he will look at this as we move on with the Bill.”
“We know that a lot of media organisations in particular, let us call a spade a spade, have been very eager to ensure it is as difficult as possible for defamation cases to be taken. Of course, they are concerned about their own corporate future and their ability to be financially viable. It is not to dismiss those concerns at all. The right to a good name can be as equally valid for an entity as it is for an individual. We are moving to a point where, essentially, we now have three standards. We have the standard for what counts as defamation of individuals, which is a fairly high standard, in fairness. We have a standard for not-for-profit corporate entities and the definition of serious harm. I am not sure how that would be proven in that case.”
“One of the objectives of defamation law - it might not be stated in law - is that, at a time when there is so much mistrust about misinformation and disinformation, it should be a case that anybody who is publishing anything, particularly a professional media outlet, should not want to tell lies. The difficulty with this definition is that, for a for-profit entity, you can publish lies about it as long as it does not actually have a financial loss. There might be reasons for publishing lies or making defamatory remarks, even beyond media outlets, in the sense that while one company might not suffer a financial loss because of lies being told about it, another company might get a financial benefit from it, if the context in which that would happen can be understood.”
“That is why there is a need for a little bit of thought on this section. The Minister will appreciate that I am new to this Bill and following it so I was not through all the permutations in the pre-legislative scrutiny but it just struck me when I read this section for the first time that there are potential issues here. I would like the Minister to give his assurance that he has considered all of those potential issues and perhaps agree to have a look at this to ensure they do not become more contentious once the Bill is enacted, if it is to be the case we move forward on that basis.”
“One scenario might be that someone could defame a shop in a local town by spreading malicious rumours or printing something and while the shop would lose current customers, other customers would come in because of growth in the local population and the bottom line would not necessarily be affected. It is important to be mindful of that. As I say, I am much more concerned about the definition that is in place for not-for-profits because it is much harder then to define serious harm. For example, the Minister and I are members of political parties. Our parties of which we are members could fall under this criteria. If our parties were to be defamed, how would you prove serious harm? Would you come back after the next election and show a certain percentage drop in the vote or a lower percentage? How would you do that?”
“Again, there are potential concerns here that are perhaps not envisaged in the Bill. We need to be incredibly careful. In terms of corporate profit-making entities, on the face of it, one would think that if a company has been defamed, one would automatically see an impact on profit margins or turnover. I am sure it would not take too much imagination to consider where there could be anomalies in that. Sometimes when talking about corporate entities, we think about big corporations but a corporate entity could be a local shop. We know in these cases that reputational damage can happen over a long period.”
“Will the Minister speak to the justification for the new section 12(2) inserted by section 6 and what he envisages will be the outworkings of this? I ask that in particular as I am not aware of any slew of cases from non-profits in terms of the definition. What problem are we seeking to actually solve by this? Is the Minister considering bringing forward amendments to this section on Report Stage?”
“I am equally concerned that an incident whereby a single defamatory statement is not adjudicated to have caused serious harm, but forms part of a series of such statements over a period by different parties. Are we to say that comparable statements only become actionable if or when they are individually the straws that break the camel's back, despite the fact that serious harm may have been caused by successive compounded statements, even by different individuals? I have concerns about this. It seems to be an unjust approach and is potentially ripe for a lack of clarity as to what may or may not be defamatory. We have a different standard, essentially, for entities versus individuals. In terms of not-for-profit organisations at least, the current definition seems to be clearer and more practical.”
“Section 6 refers to the "harm to the reputation of the body corporate" in the context of a not-for-profit organisation. This section proposes limiting this to instances whereby publication "has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the body corporate." As I indicated earlier, there is a high standard and barrier in terms of defamation of an individual. This presents it at a much higher level for a body corporate. I refer to not-for-profit corporate bodies. The Minister will be aware that a lot of these groups do incredible and crucial work in our communities. Sports clubs, for example, can be reliant on the goodwill of their local communities for all manner of supports on a local level, in such instances where goodwill is at risk. I am concerned as to the scope of the definition of "serious harm".”
“The fundamental concerns with section 5 are the same as those we had with section 4. I want to record my deep disappointment that the Minister could not be moved. When Committee Stage concludes and we proceed to Report Stage, the big question will be whether we have a Bill that has cross-party support and the full endorsement of the Oireachtas or a Bill that is contentious and divisive. Sinn Féin will be opposing this section.”
“Generally speaking, a Minister will find someone, some entity or stakeholder, to say they think this is a good idea. Where did this come from? Does the Minister know what the origins of this was? Perhaps that would give us a little more clarity to understand. From my perspective, this is the pivotal part of the debate. If the Minister proceeds as he indicates, we will be opposing the Bill. It is as fundamental as that.”
“I will make a brief point in response to one of the assertions of the Minister where he quite rightly says this House should not be bound to the views of any given set of experts, whether it be the Bar Council, the Law Library, former members of the Judiciary even or the pre-legislative scrutiny of a committee of these Houses. It is ultimately, of course, for the Dáil to make a determination in respect of laws, but there has to be logic to it. The question I was asking the Minister was that all of these bodies are on one side saying this is a very bad idea, the Minister is on the other side saying he is moving ahead on this basis in line with his predecessor's intention, but he has not said on what basis he is doing that. The Minister has given some arguments but, frankly, I do not think any of them stack up.”
“I also happen to think it is potentially dangerous to remove the voice of juries in significant defamation cases where it is, ultimately, a jury of peers who should be making the decision as to whether the very high threshold of defamation has actually been met. I want to make that case as formally as possible.”
“To revert to Minister’s original statement, he said he was bound by the programme for Government, collective government and the agreements of his predecessors. In that case, I am sure most people would have to ask what the point of this House and of having debates is. What is the point of having Committee Stage if not only is it the case that the Minister is not going to be convinced, but even if the Minister is convinced, he tells the House he will not do anything about it because his hands are tied behind his back? I ask the Minister to reflect very strongly on this. I genuinely believe he thinks this is daft. I think it is daft.”
“I am not sure if there is a legal expert or practitioner in the legal services who supports this provision at all. Certainly, the Bar Council and the Law Library seem to have particularly strong views, and I have noted the comments of former members of the Judiciary who are very vocal. We know that during the pre-legislative scrutiny, as was said by a number of other Deputies, there was unanimous support for juries. This Bill was a long time in the making. Clearly, it was not something on which there was immediate agreement from the Government because previous Governments had ignored it for so long. To come to a point where there was unanimity within the Oireachtas justice committee on an issue as profound as this, including from members of the Government and the Opposition, seems a fairly big statement.”
“It is not something I am wedded to at this point regarding whether there would be a distinction. However, it would be a good compromise to suggest there are juries and then there is the issue of costs, given the difficulty people within the legal profession might have in terms of advising clients as to the likely outcome. This would address that difficulty. I am not sure if there is another argument for abolishing juries other than delays and costs. I do not understand why the Government would be so determined to move in such a way. I am looking through the document that was produced by Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which I commend because it is a very good document that goes through all aspects of the pre-legislative scrutiny.”
“I do not believe they are at all, to be quite frank. If we were to take it to the nth degree that every component of court cases that causes a delay should be taken apart, then let us just get rid of trials altogether and arbitrarily make decisions. Presenting a defence causes a delay in the Courts Service but nobody argues we should get rid of that provision in order to speed things up. The Minister also said he had a problem with the concept of a jury making a deliberation as to whether defamation had occurred and then a judge separately making a determination in our courts, but that is precisely what happens in the criminal justice system. Juries make a finding in relation to the guilt or innocence of an accused and then judges impose a sentence based on the sentencing guidelines.”