Ms Maria McDonald:

With regard to the provision of information, the Garda now has 28 divisional offices nationwide which focus on supporting victims of crime. Those offices should have basic information available, for example, the support services that are available, the details in regard to restorative justice and how victims can get expenses, given some victims cannot even afford to go to court. From my experience, it depends on the divisional area the person is dealing with. Several cases have come to my attention recently where certain more serious crimes have been treated differently to other crimes which are deemed more minor. For example, four cases have come to my attention in the last few weeks in regard to hit-and-run incidents - not fatal accidents, but where cars were run off the road. None of those individuals received information in regard to appropriate support services or the information which is legally required to be provided under the victims' directive.

Obviously, resources are a major issue for the police, although I am not in any way criticising the police. At the same time, the directive is very clear that once a person is a victim of crime, and it does not matter what type of crime it is, the person is entitled to receive that information and the Garda cannot pick and choose which victims get it and which do not. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien has highlighted a very important issue. There certainly needs to be streamlining to ensure it is clear to all gardaí what information needs to be given.

The Deputy mentioned training. Training in regard to victims' rights is provided to new recruits in Templemore. As I understand it, empathy has now been included in that process, and if a trainee garda does not show empathy or is not engaging with the victim appropriately, that trainee will have to repeat the exams, which is a very positive development. The difficulty which arises is for individuals who are already within the current process as to whether appropriate training has been given. I have been told training programmes are available to current staff members but the issue is that I do not know at what level the training is provided or what the uptake is. It is something that needs to be looked at.

The Deputy asked whether the Canadian model was mandatory. The Bill which went before the Canadian Parliament last week would make it mandatory for all of the Judiciary to engage in that process, which would be very significant. I would have to do further research to know whether it is mandatory in other jurisdictions. Obviously, given the independence of the Judiciary, it is something which would usually be judicial-led. For example, the example I gave of Judge Hinkle's incredible work in Massachusetts was judicial-led and we are working with all of the different groups and parties within that jurisdiction.

With regard to the benefit, Judge Hinkle provided evidence that highlighted the significant benefit that has been seen in Massachusetts through using scientific evidence in regard to trauma for victims of crime and the training of judges in that regard. The example I was given was that judges there are now informed of the triggers which need to be watched for in domestic abuse and sexual abuse cases, for example, triggers that might indicate a potential suicide or that the victim is in danger. These are not necessarily obvious and, as I understand it, this has made a massive difference in terms of the understanding of the process from a judicial perspective.

The committee will be aware that, very often, victims of crime and of domestic abuse may have a protection order but they then breach that protection order themselves. As I understand it, the judges there had a better understanding of why that was happening. It can be a very frustrating for a judge who is trying to give those orders when the victim is continually breaching them rather than the offender. To understand why that is happening can be very beneficial for the understanding of the judge in that process.

The Deputy asked why restorative justice was being pulled, in effect. I would point out it was not originally intended to be in the scheme. The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality worked very closely with the Victims Rights Alliance and other organisations. We had highlighted the need for it to be included and that is why it was subsequently included in the scheme of the Bill. It will be noticed there are other things in the scheme that did not subsequently come into the Bill. As I understand it, this may be with the Attorney General and she may be currently considering the matter. Again, there is no restorative justice legal process in Ireland and there may be concerns in regard to whether it forms part of the criminal justice process, which I submit would fall within the definition of the victims' directive. The Deputy mentioned there is no definition of restorative justice but the victims' directive does provide a definition of restorative justice and that has direct effect. Legally, therefore, the definition of restorative justice in Ireland is the same as the victims' directive in the context that is currently used. Ireland must have regard to that, regardless of whether it has legislation in place.