Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

This debate concerns section 3 and as I stated earlier, one of the reasons for opposition to the section is that I believe it to be superfluous. We have existing legislation which has not been used. There is more related to it and consideration must be given as to whether this is a proportionate measure.

It is difficult to say if the section is proportionate because we have not yet taken other practical steps, which I will list in a moment. If such steps had been taken and failed, or they did not have the required success, we could then turn around and say that as a society we must consider quite draconian steps in legislation. We would also then need to change definitions and particular sections by beefing them up, for example.

To my knowledge section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 has not been used to the extent to which it should have been used. A long list of crimes was provided to justify the need for that legislation. Limerick State solicitor, Mr. Michael Murray, is reported to have made several comments in respect of solicitors. If he or the Minister have evidence in respect of certain activities being carried out by particular solicitors, these individuals should be charged. Under the law, quite an array of charges can be brought against people suspected of perverting the course of or hampering the delivery of justice or of assisting others in the commission of crimes.

There may perhaps be too much legislation and the DPP, the Garda Síochána and the Judiciary are becoming confused as a result. We should simplify the position and ensure that people can be convicted. What is the reason behind the collapse of cases? If one were to believe what the Minister is stating, then cases are either not going to court or are collapsing on the basis of witness intimidation. I will not state that witness or juror intimidation does not occur. I commend witnesses and jurors on their bravery.

Practical steps need to be taken in respect of such intimidation. In fairness to the organs of the State, when intimidation of this nature was highlighted in Limerick, the relevant trial was moved to a different location. I accept that this might not be viable in every case. However, the witness protection programme has not even been placed on a statutory footing. In addition, the concerns to which Deputy Finian McGrath referred have not been addressed. If we had a proper witness protection programme, it would address the concerns of those people who are being harassed on a daily basis.

We have a responsibility to ensure that legislation stands the test of time. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 has not done so, which attests to the difficulties involved in rushing through legislation. In that context, I object to the way the Bill is being rushed through. I refer to the practical steps that might be taken. I will now do so in respect of a later section. I also wish to move on to deal with some of the other provisions in the legislation which are odious.

See this speech in context