Dáil debates

Tuesday, 7 July 2009

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

Initially, I responded to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's broad objection to this legislation. I repeat this is not a monumental change to the criminal law. As I noted previously, it proposes to treat criminal gangs in the same manner that we have for decades treated the issue of paramilitary organisations. I reiterate that the Cabinet considered this matter a number of times. It specifically considered the legislation over three meetings, that is, over substantial parts of two meetings and at one meeting that was devoted exclusively to the finalisation of the drafting of this legislation. It did so on the basis of advice that I had tendered to the Cabinet with regard to the assessment made by the Garda Commissioner and the Garda Síochána in general, in respect of the changed situation that has arisen in recent years, particularly in the aftermath of the Shane Geoghegan and Roy Collins murders.

While I can answer all the questions raised by Members, although this does not pertain exclusively to Limerick, the Garda Commissioner particularly indicated that gardaí on the ground in Limerick are conscious of a natural reluctance by people to serve on juries in criminal trials, including gang-related trials, against a background of a perception of fear and intimidation. The Limerick State solicitor, Mr. Murray, gave one instance of which he was aware and there are others of which the Garda Síochána is aware, particularly in Dublin, as well as in Limerick. Consequently, all the Garda's hard evidence is that there is a strong fear, particularly in the aforementioned geographical areas, of people bringing themselves forward.

I chose my words carefully previously, when I stated that each issue dealt with in this legislation is a response to issues that have been of concern. While the Limerick State solicitor, Mr. Murray, has instanced some grave misgivings regarding the activities of some solicitors, I repeat the legislation was drafted carefully before Mr. Murray made his statements and before Members made statements in this House regarding the intimidation of jurors. The legislation is based on the hard information that been brought to my attention by the Garda Síochána in respect of the intimidation of jurors.

The Garda Commissioner indicated to the Cabinet, through me, that it was his firm view that in dealing with gangland crime, the effective administration of justice would be best served by scheduling the offences in the proposed Bill for the purpose of the Offences against the State Act. He also stated that it was his considered assessment that the established pattern of ruthless behaviour on the part of criminal gangs in their attempts to thwart the operation of the criminal justice system has created a situation where in practice, the ordinary courts will face great difficulties in securing the effective administration of justice in the case of the offences in question and that there is a compelling case for the proposed scheduling of such offences. That assessment was based on hard evidence of intimidation of jurors and is confirmed by the anecdotal evidence of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Power, the State solicitor and Mr. John Hennessy, who has a very good article in the Irish independent, in which he writes that, as someone who has been the subject of Garda protection, "there is absolute evidence that people are extremely reluctant to serve on a jury in a gangland criminal case, and it is proving increasingly difficult to secure a jury for these trials". We are not relying on his word, nor on the word of the State solicitor. We made the decision on hard information given by the Garda Commissioner.

This is an issue on which the House should unite. I do not suggest there are Deputies who do not want to see the back of these people. In the context of the Roy Collins murder, the Oireachtas must act in a substantial way.

For people to suggest this is a dramatic change is not correct. At the moment the DPP has the right to send people to the Special Criminal Court and has done so on occasions in cases that have nothing to do with paramilitary organisations. He did so in respect of those involved in the murder of Veronica Guerin and in substantial drug offences. The Oireachtas is sending a strong signal based on the information tendered to the Government by the Garda Commissioner and the evidence and testimony of people a few minutes ago in this House, who understand the level of fear and intimidation of the population in their respective areas. The Oireachtas is making a strong statement that in all of these cases, in respect of two specific offences of directing and participating in criminal organisations, cases should go to the Special Criminal Court to remove any perception of difficulty with jurors, unless the DPP directs otherwise. It may be the case that the DPP will decide that the ordinary courts are sufficient in every case. That is an option. The DPP is completely independent of the political process. The Government believes the Oireachtas should send a strong signal that specific offences with which we are dealing should be raised to the same level as a threat to the State posed by paramilitary organisations.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to opinion evidence. I emphasise that this legislation concerns expert evidence on the existence of a criminal gang. It is not directed at the guilt or innocence of the accused. That is not possible. After the Shane Geoghegan murder, Members such as Deputy Noonan, a former Minister for Justice, raise the matter of opinion evidence and whether we can convict on the basis of the evidence of a chief superintendent. The advice of the Attorney General confirmed the advice given by the previous Attorney General in 2006 to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the effect that the courts will not convict solely on the opinion evidence of a chief superintendent and that there had to be substantial corroborative evidence in this regard.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.