Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their excellent and concise submissions. I agree entirely with the tone, as they have all taken a very similar approach. I share their welcome for this codifying Bill because we will see provisions relating to bail condensed in one place, which is very welcome.

However, I would also agree with Ms Duffy's points about the need to ensure adequate protection of the rights of due process for accused persons. This committee has contributed to the progressive agenda on penal reform, notably with our report on penal reform some years ago. We recommended that imprisonment be a sanction of last resort. We also recommended various ways of enhancing these community sanctions.

Some of the witnesses spoke about the right to bail. I welcome provisions 1 and 2 in head 10 where there is a clear presumption in favour of granting bail. It states that "An applicant for bail shall be granted bail except where ... the court does not consider" and so on. Is there a way any of the witnesses would suggest to strengthen that language? I am conscious that we already have implicit, albeit not explicit, protection in the Constitution for the presumption of innocence. We have clear protections for the right to liberty, so is there a need to say more? Is that enough in head 10(2).

I have two specific questions for the Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, relating to some things that were said in the submissions. The IPRT made a strong case for bail supports and services, including some instructive figures on positive outcomes from elsewhere. Will Ms Malone elaborate a little more on the actual content of the sort of schemes she has talked about elsewhere, including the idea of supervised bail? The closest we have to that is curfews and the obligation to sign on daily at a Garda station. In a sense, if we have a tightly constructed set of conditions imposed on bail, it comes close to a sort of supervision, but what exactly does Ms Malone mean by "supervised bail"? Does she think that electronic monitoring can be part of that? In Denmark, we saw electronic monitoring used in a relatively progressive manner.

My other question is specifically for the ICCL. It is about the provision in head 28 that the complainant would give evidence. I agree with Ms Duffy that we need to look at that. Clearly there is a victim's rights element here too. Does Ms Duffy have any ideas on reform? Rather than ruling it out altogether, would there be merit in including provisions that are tighter, like the sort of victim impact statement we have after conviction, in order that there is a format for this evidence to be given? Head 29 refers to Garda evidence and currently gardaí give evidence about the impact on complainants. Should we build that into the legislation?

I note that in the post-conviction stage, and part 6 that deals with bail applications on appeal, there is provision for complainants to give evidence. I do not think anyone can object to the complainant giving evidence in the bail hearing after conviction. That seems to be entirely right.

Head 36 is about the power of the District Court to grant bail where a sentence is being appealed. That could have a significant impact in practice because many sentences of imprisonment are appealed from the District Court and bail is fairly routinely provided for in those cases. We could see quite an increase of people being detained in custody who are not being currently. That is one practical impact that this legislation could have.