Ms Shalom Binchy:

We feel there is potential confusion with the use of the term "binding-over orders" in heads 8 and 10. The courts currently have the power to bind people over to the peace even in circumstances where they are not charged with a criminal offence. The use of the term "binding-over orders" may result in confusion between the two different types of orders which will be available. The Law Reform Commission's 2005 report suggested the use of terms such as "full dismissal" or "conditional dismissal". It is possible that the inherent jurisdiction of the courts to dismiss a case on its merits may be diluted should the approach proposed by the general scheme be adopted. We recommend the use of the terms "full discharge order" and "conditional discharge order" instead of the term "discharge orders" and "binding-over orders" to avoid confusion.

The maintenance of the privacy and confidentiality of recipients of probation services is addressed at head 38. The general scheme proposes changes to how the Probation Service operates. Under the general scheme of the Bill the Minister may direct a designated person to investigate a complaint regarding the treatment of a person being dealt with by that service. There does not appear to be a requirement that such investigations be made pursuant to a complaint being made by the recipient of the service.

Often persons who are under the care of the Probation Service disclose certain highly confidential and sensitive matters personal to them which may be of interest to other organs of the State. The procedure whereby the Minister can direct investigation by a designated person could result in the State coming into possession of highly sensitive and confidential information. We recommend that the procedure for the investigation of complaints be reviewed to consider the best approach to maintain confidentiality of recipients of probation services.

The use of moneys paid into the reparation fund, and the need to maintain the spirit of the poor box system and fund anti-recidivism efforts in communities are dealt with at head 30. The general scheme proposes that moneys currently paid towards general community needs and charitable purposes through the poor box system be redirected exclusively to victim support and the funding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Payments for compensation, reparation and assistance for the victims of crime are provided for, and the fund may not be used for any other purpose. Local charities and organisations benefit from the poor box and they are likely to be affected by the proposed redirection of funds. This redirection will not assist anti-recidivism efforts in communities as locally based front-line organisations are unlikely to receive supports.

In 2005, the Law Reform Commission endorsed the view that the fund "should be used to assist programmes aimed at preventing offending behaviour since these would be of benefit to the offender and the victim in this specific case and to assist potential offenders and potential victims in society." We recommend that the application of moneys from the reparation fund be allocated to community anti-recidivism initiatives in line with Law Reform Commission proposals.