Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I do not believe the consideration to be that of the chief superintendent or anybody else. It is the court's consideration which is relevant. That is the first issue.

Some emphasis was put on the proposition that if I indicated the opinion of the chief superintendent to be reasonable evidence, it would in some sense force the court's hand and give a particular weight to the evidence of the chief superintendent. I would ask the House to consider such evidence to be admissible. That clearly underlines my intention, which is that the court will decide what weight to attach to such evidence after it is admitted.

The court can indicate it hears Chief Superintendent Bloggs giving his opinion that it is reasonably necessary to deny bail in a case to prevent the further commission of serious offences. It does not mean that this is, of itself, determinative of the issue and, if it is not contradicted, that it decides the issue. If it is simply admissible as evidence, it would clearly underline that the court must decide the weight to be attached to the evidence in question.

With regard to the general proposition, it is the case at the moment that bail decisions are largely dealt with on the basis of evidence as to what is likely to happen. Currently a District Court, High Court or other judge listens to evidence in bail applications as to whether the accused is likely to turn up to the trial if granted bail. It would be one person's view against another but the court attempts to decide it on the basis of evidence, and it would allow both hearsay and opinion to be tested in court. If a sergeant states before a local District Court judge his belief that if a man is given bail and would never be seen again because of a residency in Northern Ireland, for example——

See this speech in context