Ms Maria McDonald:

The Bill is very good in dealing with a significant number of issues under the victims' directive, but there are some major omissions, which I mentioned. For example, it is an obligation under the victims directive to facilitate the referral of victims to victim support services by the body that receives a complaint from the victim. On our end, this would be the Garda. The directive uses the word "shall": it states that the Garda shall facilitate the referral to victims of crime. Currently, the Bill states that a member of An Garda Síochána or a member of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission may refer a victim where he or she consents.

The difficulty is that a victim could consent to being referred but, due to this discretion, a member of An Garda Síochána would still not refer the victim. There are obviously serious implications for the victim because it could cause re-victimisation in that context. The victim is not being provided with that support and they do not understand why they are not getting that support. There is a positive obligation for the Garda to facilitate referral for all victims of crime. In that context, that section is incorrect and should be amended. In my view, it does not comply with the directive.

From my understanding, the reason the restorative justice aspect is not included in the Bill is because there is no statutory scheme for restorative justice. However, victims are involved informally in such processes, although they are offender-led. If a victim is engaging in such a process, or, in the example I gave the committee earlier of a judge requiring or requesting that a victim engage in such a process, then in those circumstances the safeguards should be put in place in legislation to ensure that a victim is not re-victimised. That is the reason for that process.

Another issue with the Bill is that all victims of crime must have an independent assessment by the Garda to ascertain whether they have special protection needs and, as such, this relates to the type, nature and circumstances of the crime. For example, factors which would need to be considered in that individual assessment include whether it is a hate crime. The personal circumstances of he individual involved, whether he or she has a disability, for example, must also be considered. Currently, the manner by which the legislation is drafted limits the individual assessment to consider particular types of motives. It should be open-ended rather than limited. For example, I know, thankfully, matters will change today but Travellers were not included in the definition of ethnicity. Accordingly, Travellers would not be entitled to the special protections under the Bill, if they were, for example, subject to a hate crime. I know things are changing today - thank God - but that is an example where issues may arise in the future. It needs to be open-ended to ensure all victims get those special protection needs.

It is all very well having legislation but unless one has a means to ensure victims’ rights are protected, it will fall by the wayside. Victims, as we all know, have great difficulties with having an appropriate complaints process available to them. From our research, we find that they are afraid to make a complaint to An Garda Síochána because it might affect their case. When they do go to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, they also find it might affect or they believe it has affected their case. The process by which GSOC goes through a complaint can take two years or more. Victims feel they do not get what they need out of that process. Under the directive, if one is getting information or support services, all one wants is that information to be given straight away. We suggest a simple and clear complaints process for victims to ensure if they do not get information when they reach their trial date, they will get it as soon as possible.

For the past several years, we have been advocating for a federal ombudsman for victims of crime, which would be keeping in line with the Canadian approach and the recital to the directive, which would be a preamble, for example, to the directive. It would suggest the establishment of one-stop shops for victims of crime. If there is a complaint, an ombudsman’s office would be able to deal with it in a swift way. I have been in contact over the past several years with all the ombudsman offices, including GSOC and the Ombudsman for Children. Within their current format, there is nothing preventing them from actually identifying a victims’ ombudsman within their offices without establishing a new office per se. Obviously, there will be procedural issues around that but, from a monetary perspective, one would not be establishing a new office.

On the Deputy's second question on the parole process in other jurisdictions, Canada would be the one with which I would work most closely and would recommend its use. For example, as I mentioned in my opening statement, being able to pick and choose what information one receives, to be able to view a parole hearing online might be basic, but at the same time, they reduce the re-victimisation of the victim while also providing them with appropriate information. It is a similar approach in the United States where information is provided, one can either opt in or opt out and one can view parole hearings or attend them.

In Canada, there is a victim surcharge. For example, if an offender commits a crime, then he or she would have to pay a victim surcharge as opposed to a fine. Those moneys will go directly to pay for the ombudsman's office or victim support organisations, for example. In 1984, America implemented the Victims of Crime Act which, similarly, has a victim fund where moneys are paid directly to victim support organisations.

The criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill 2014, envisaged by the former minister, Alan Shatter, indicated the moneys would go to the Department of Justice and Equality. I am of the view that any victims’ moneys should go to an independent source. The reason I say that is because currently the commission for victims of crime does not exist anymore. If one looked at the Department website, it would lead one to believe there is an independent body currently assessing moneys that go to victims of crime. However, all moneys are distributed by the Department of Justice and Equality’s victims of crime office. Transparency is incredibly important to ensure moneys are given to victim support organisations. We all know of incidents and difficulties which have arisen with charities recently. We all want to ensure that those moneys are given in a transparent way and that victims know how and when they are going get it. I am not in any way criticising the Department of Justice and Equality’s victims of crime office. It does a great job. However, victims believe that the commission for victims of crime still exists when it actually does not. If there was to be a victim surcharge, I would recommend it would go to an independent source such as a commission or an ombudsman's office rather than going directly to the Department of Justice and Equality. As we all know, sometimes means change in Departments.