Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I should have said the amendments relate to sections 8 and 9, applications for retrial and, section 23 which deals with prejudice prosecution appeals. I take the Minister's point that where a person who is aware the order has been made purposely absents himself or herself the subsection will allow the court to proceed to hear and determine the application in his or her absence. I am not disputing that. The amendments do not seek to prevent the court from hearing applications or appeals under section 23 in the absence of the person.

The amendments provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be obliged to give the person concerned all reasonable notice. It may be, as the Minister stated, that the courts will read that in because they already have the test that they can only hear in the absence of the person where it is in the interest of justice to do so. One would hope that they would read that in. However, it is important to oblige the DPP to give the person concerned all reasonable notice. Clearly, if the person then purposely absents himself or herself the court can proceed to hear the application in his or her absence if it is in the interests of justice to do so. The amendment does not seek to prevent the court from hearing the applications or the appeal in the absence of the person but places an extra obligation on the Director of Public Prosecutions. Given the enormous new powers being given to that office under sections 8, 9 and 23 this provides for a little balance in the interests of the acquitted person. I stress again that the term "acquitted person" refers to a person who has already been through the criminal justice process and has been acquitted and there is therefore an extra onus on us to ensure balance and safeguards for such persons where the Director of Public Prosecutions is being given these extensive and radical new powers.