Dáil debates

Wednesday, 7 March 2007

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage

 

9:00 pm

Photo of Frank FaheyFrank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

The amendment would have the effect of allowing persons other than barristers or solicitors of at least seven years standing to act as a member of an appeals tribunals. I do not propose to accept the amendment. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights and legal opinions obtained by the Office of the Attorney General point to the possibility that imposing a loss of remission as a sanction might be regarded as imposing an additional sentence of imprisonment and, therefore, would require the safeguard associated with a criminal trial.

Against this background, we are endeavouring to provide in the Bill a relatively uncomplicated disciplinary procedure that allows cases where loss of remission is imposed to be appealed to an independent and legally qualified person who will deal with the matter in a quasi-judicial manner. Therefore, it is important that a member of the appeal tribunal has extensive legal experience. As an appeal tribunal is a quasi-judicial authority, it is not appropriate that a person with no legal background should take on a judicial role.

The proposed amendment would allow a person from a variety of backgrounds to act on appeals tribunals. While this may appear to be a desirable approach for some, it could contribute to a lack of consistency in decisions. While there are no guarantees that an appeal tribunal as envisaged in the Bill will have complete consistency, it is desirable that decisions of a tribunal are legally robust, capable of withstanding a challenge and are made with due respect to general principles and procedures of law.

Amendment No. 18 was put to the Tánaiste on Committee Stage. The amendment would have the effect of requiring an appeal tribunal to publish the reasons for its decisions. Having considered this proposal and given the independent nature of the tribunals, it is preferable to allow them to determine their procedures, as is currently provided for in subsection 16(7). For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.