Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am very sympathetic to the spirit of both of these amendments. I indicated that previously and I am not just saying so now. It is my view that if somebody is the subject of a conviction by reason of a miscarriage of justice, we should supply remedies for him or her. Likewise, it is my strong view that if somebody secured an acquittal by certain forms of miscarriage of justice, particularly tampering with a jury, or tampering with witnesses for that matter, he or she should be subject to the stricture that if he or she procured a mistrial by an unlawful act, he or she must face the prospect of retrial, in certain serious cases at any rate. I indicated that when Deputy Howlin raised this in the context of the Criminal Justice Act of last year and I also indicated that in the context of a speech I made in Limerick in October last year. It was one of the matters I put on the agenda of the Hogan group for consideration and I note what that group has stated on these matters.

My mind has not altered one bit about this, just in case anybody thinks I am being inconsistent. Every time I discussed this in public I stated I believe this to be a desirable change in the law.

Whereas I share the view of Deputies Howlin and Jim O'Keeffe on this matter, it is not entirely free from controversy. I do not think, especially having listened to remarks from people from the fringes in the past few days, this would go without controversy. At the very least, we would need to have a significant debate on this issue, and to look at the constitutional implications of double jeopardy, before we go down that route.

I have been accused by people of trying to rush something through without adequate thought or adequate preparation for it. The Hogan report is an extremely valuable document and whereas I do not agree with every word of it, I agree with the significant bulk of what is in it and in some areas I would go further.

I took the trouble last Saturday to go to a seminar run in the Bar Council's premises and expressed all these views to a meeting of barristers. I thought that at least while I was present there was unanimity on these matters, although afterwards I discovered that some learned speakers came from different parts of the country and disagreed with the principle of some of the matters I am recommending. That being the case, I am confronted with the following choice: do I stop this now and have a widespread debate on the Hogan report, or do I proceed with this Bill which is narrower in focus.

See this speech in context