Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the Minister agrees with the principle behind this proposal, we are unable to accept the amendment because the provisions are already included in the Bill. I refer Deputy Mac Lochlainn to section 14(1)(c) which comprehends refusal to confiscate and which states, "that compliance with the external confiscation order in relation to the offence that resulted in the making of that order would infringe the ne bis in idemprinciple". It means a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. It is often referred to as the double-jeopardy principle. In addition, subsection (1)(e) already states that "the criminal conduct concerned was either committed outside the territory of the designated state concerned or committed wholly or partly in the State". Each state only has jurisdiction over offences committed within its borders. The new section 60E.(1)(a), which deals with refusal to execute external financial penalty order, states that an order would be refused where "a financial penalty order has been made in the State against the defendant in respect of the conduct which resulted in the making of the external financial penalty order". In addition, subsection (1)(e) provides for refusal where the criminal conduct concerned was either committed outside the territory of the designated state concerned or committed wholly or partly in the State. A similar provision applies in regard to the EU-Japan mutual legal assistance agreement to which we are giving effect. Article 11, grounds for refusal, provides that assistance will be refused where "the person, who is subject to criminal investigations, prosecutions or other proceedings, including judicial proceedings, for which the assistance is requested, in the requesting State, has already been finally convicted or acquitted for the same facts in a Member State or Japan".

I should also point out to the Deputy that there is already a general provision in section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 - the legislation we are amending today - which provides that the procedures in dealing with such requests may not be contrary to the fundamental principles of the laws of the State, including the principle of ne bis in idem. We have no difficulty with the thrust of the amendment but it is already catered for in this and other legislation.