Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

The Ceann Comhairle almost caught me unawares.

Before I adjourned this debate, I was dealing with the Minister's announcement of new pleas and verdicts. I referred to the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity replacing the present guilty but insane verdict. I mentioned one or two instances that caused concern in the past and will no doubt do so in future. Some members of the public feel that victims do not receive due recognition in such circumstances. The Minister is an eminent legal practitioner, while I am not, nor am I a psychologist or psychiatrist. However, I have witnessed cases during my time in this House that would certainly warrant questions, particularly when, after a period, someone decides that the perpetrator should be released on what seem to victims and their families as tenuous grounds.

I mentioned one case in particular. I do not wish to draw attention to a specific case, but I know that the Minister is aware of this because, to the best of my knowledge, the person concerned is off shore, having left the country in peculiar circumstances. I am trying to ascertain in the context of the legislation whether future victims will have a greater or lesser degree of protection or recognition of their plight when, as they see it, even under current legislation, a perpetrator can appeal on the basis that he was insane when he committed the act but completely sane ten minutes before and a few hours afterwards. I know that we tread an extremely thin line, but the public is not convinced, and neither am I.

The public's confidence in the system to protect it is important. While we should never attempt to exceed the law regarding punishment, the public has recently got the impression that, for some reason, if a good enough case is made, someone who is a murderer, a rapist, or both, can get away on spurious grounds. Whether it is the public's fault for reaching such a conclusion or that of someone else I cannot say.

I ask the Minister, in the context of the Bill, to examine whether the public has confidence in the judicial system and the necessity that it have absolute trust in it. I refer to the Minister's points when he made his announcement on 12 December 2002, when he was a newly fledged Minister, full of bright hopes for the future and great proposals, having climbed telegraph poles with grand announcements, looking rather like the Statue of Liberty. He came back down to earth again and is now even closer to ground level than then. He said that there would be a new plea of guilty with diminished responsibility in cases of murder where the mental disorder is not such as to justify an insanity verdict. That means much more in legalese than it does to me, and I cannot say what it will mean to the public.

It would be of grave public concern if it became easier for someone who has committed a serious crime, such as murder, rape, or both, to escape imprisonment after a shorter period than that intended at sentencing. I do not wish to harp on about this issue, but it is important. That excuse has been used in the past and will be used again. I mentioned an individual who was released from prison on the grounds of being fully fit and rehabilitated or having served his full sentence. He left this country and went to another jurisdiction where, from recollection, he raped approximately five women and killed a sixth within five or six weeks. That was a few years ago, but the case was well known at the time.

What kind of plea would the law now entertain from such a person? Perhaps, in replying on Second Stage, the Minister might examine some cases where change would be of benefit. That is important. The public must be reassured that we are acting not because of semantics or pedantry but for the genuine reason of improving the efficacy of the law and public confidence in it, which is absolutely necessary.

The Minister said that the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002 will clarify, modernise and reform the law on criminal insanity, bringing our law on such difficult and sensitive matters into line with Ireland's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. I fully respect the need to comply with the convention, but I also recognise that it in no way impinges on framing the law in such a way as to protect the people and families of those who are victims.

The events of recent days regarding an issue in another part of the country serve to focus on the public's need for some kind of signal that the direction in which we are going is the right one. I have not been a harsh arbiter in this area and this is not a political criticism of the Minister. However, there is an obligation on all of us to recognise that much of the current lawlessness is generated by a belief among young people that crime pays, that if they cannot get away with it one way they can get away with it another. That is sad. I disagree with zero tolerance because I do not believe it works. It only works when a clear signal is given to criminals throughout the country that crime does not pay, they will not escape, they will be punished and they will not be allowed to shoot, stab, kneecap or bludgeon people to death. They must recognise that from the word "go", and that lesson must percolate down to the children who have not yet started on the way of crime.

There was a case a few years ago involving a young fellow of about 14 or 15 years of age who had a string of convictions as long as one's arm. He called himself the young general or some such pseudonym — I cannot remember it exactly. It is a sad reflection on our society that a young person with criminal intent was able to give the two fingers to society and walk away. That attitude came from only one thing — the big guys who were driving the big cars.

Only last week a man was severely injured — as far as I know that is all that happened — when he was surrounded by two high powered cars at a roundabout in Clondalkin. The media was able to give a graphic account of that incident. Obviously, there are powerful people involved in this business who believe they can get away with these incidents, and they are doing so. I am aware one was arrested today in Belgium, and congratulations are due for that, but we have a long way to go.

It is correct that defenders should have adequate space to plead their case and defend their client. However, they should not be given extra space to get their client off if he is a murderer, rapist or whatever. I am not making a political point when I say that to preserve respect for the law and the institutions of State and to ensure that we reduce crime which is escalating, we must be careful about what we do and how we do it in regard to this legislation if we are to achieve its objectives.

See this speech in context