Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, lines 9 to 31 and in page 4, lines 1 to 15, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following:

"(b) the substitution of the following section for section 37:

'37.—(1) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a juror, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €500.

(2) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a witness, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

(3) The amendment of this Act (other than this subsection) effected by paragraph (b) of section 1 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 2005 shall not apply if the date specified in the summons concerned falls before the passing of the second-mentioned Act.'.".

It is proposed here to differentiate between witnesses and jurors. Under the Bill as it stands they are treated the same way as regards punishments. The view taken by my Department is that the non-attendance of a juror or potential juror, while serious, is not of the same order as somebody who has evidence to give, deciding not to turn up. One is a random process, whereas the other is a deliberate process which could seriously affect the viability of an inquest. The approach the Department proposes is to differentiate between both situations in a manner that reflects the seriousness of somebody who is required as a witness, not turning up. I commend the amendment to the committee.

See this speech in context