Mr. Tony McGillicuddy:

Chairman, members of the committee, Minister, Lord Mayor and other distinguished guests who have made presentations, what can I add to what has been said? Many of the points have been covered but I will give the committee some of my thoughts. To echo what previous speakers said, something that would be different about community courts - this is one of the reasons the Bar Council is generally supportive of the concept - is that instead of sanctioning people it would be a case of sanction plus remedies, not just remedies for society in general but also for the offender who is before the courts. That person might be suffering from drug or alcohol addiction, mental health difficulties or undiagnosed educational disabilities.

I practice in criminal courts, and it is not unusual to have clients on serious charges in the Circuit Criminal Court, where relevant reports are obtained and something that has lain undiagnosed throughout the person's life is diagnosed and can be seen as a root problem of criminal offending. There are difficulties concerning homelessness, family difficulties including abusive relationships, and poverty difficulties that lead to prostitution or begging. These are the matters on which offenders come before the courts. At present, the system's only ability is to refer these people to the probation service and for the Probation Service, with its excellent staff who do huge work in difficult circumstances and with limited resources, to co-ordinate facilities and services to try to get these people out of the basement and on their feet again.

In the context of the system we have, with recidivism and a cycle of offending, the chances of a breakdown for these people are very large and the chances of their succeeding are rather low. The community court concept can provide remedies for them, which would be integrated, and deal with them on a sophisticated basis. This is something the Bar Council supports. In respect of sanctions, the Bar Council supports the community court, the sanction of restorative justice, working in the community and adapting the community service provision so that they apply in this context for people to work in the community from which they come. This means there is community support. Just as the community courts model should not be imposed without planning, it should not be imposed on the community in question without the community seeing something positive to be gained. The offenders come from the same communities and if they can give something back they can gain an element of pride that they are doing something positive in their community. The community can see itself as being supportive rather than seeing something imposed by people on the south side of this, or any other, city as some kind of solution without the community seeing something it can partake in.

The Bar Council and practitioners in the area, of which I am one, are supportive of the concept. This means there is a wider remit of remedies, solutions and sanctions available to meet the ends of punishment and rehabilitation. If the community court concept to is to be followed through on, it should be explained to the public at large so that it can fulfil both roles and so that it is not imposed without proper planning and communication with the community and the community at large.

In respect of how it operates in practice, I must echo the comments of Mr. Murphy about resourcing it. I draw on the experience of practitioners and colleagues I have spoken to. I sampled the knowledge about the drugs court, a court in which I only practised briefly. Members of the committee may not be aware that solicitor firms engage barristers on a frequent basis to take cases in the District Court where they have clients and are dealing with cases in other courts. Barristers in Dublin find themselves in the District Court, particularly in their younger years. When it was in operation, the drugs court was one of those courts. My sample of colleagues who participated, and my experience, is that there were uneven results in the drugs court for different reasons. Part of it, which was touched upon by one of the speakers from New York, is that other services were not available in the building. It was housed in the Richmond building. If a judge said he wanted someone to access the Probation Service and access housing services and return at 2 p.m. to say that appointments had been made, the services were not on site for the person to access them directly. We must look at it through the prism of someone who is homeless. They may have an appointment with the Probation Service in Smithfield but it is easy for the person to lose a piece of paper or lose a phone. If a service is on site, the person can queue up and meet someone that day. The person can return to that building and does not have to go anywhere else. If the person is not turning up for appointments, it is easy for the Probation Service to report it to the judge. It means things are integrated. This might seem like a building issue but we need things under one roof. We need that for the person but also for the system to work.

Another thing that had an impact on the ability of the drugs court to work well was the changeover of staff. Trained staff from different services, including education services, a psychiatrist who can give an initial assessment for mental health problems, and housing services, should be under one roof so that they are integrated. People detected unevenness. We also need positive participation by the person in question. Other speakers alluded to the importance of legal representation so that an accused person can make an informed decision to plead guilty or not guilty. Secondly, the solicitor who has dealt with the person over a long period of time, or the barrister a solicitor has engaged to represent the person on that day, are the only friends the person has. When we have our final dealing with clients being sentenced to a prison term, as barristers we say that we hope things will go well. If we ask them what they will do when they come out, the answer is that they have nowhere to go when released after the sentence. The Prison Service may give the persons a small sum of money to pay for the bus fare but they have nothing. In that regard, the role of the lawyer is to advise on options and, if the person pleads guilty, it is important that the lawyer can advise that the community court is a good thing to engage in. The lawyer is the only friend the person has. Legal representation is important for the protection of the person's rights and to inform the person of options. The legal representative is the only person who can do that at the start in a proper way.

Advanced planning, advanced education and advanced communication with communities in question and the public are vital. There must be integrated services that are on site and well resourced. The probation service, due to resource difficulties over the past number of years, cannot do drug testing. Everyone is cognisant of the position the State is in. People must be referred to a general practitioner. The service must be well resourced, there must be legal representation and there must be community involvement. We should look back at the drugs court initiative, look at the positive aspects and also see the problems that arose, where it fell down and learn from it before the community courts concept is introduced. We are generally supportive once there is an element of integration. The Bar Council will play a positive role in any working groups with the committee, the Department or any other group required to work positively for the implementation of the idea.