Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

This section deals with the issue of evidential provisions as proof of the existence of a criminal organisation and Deputy Flanagan's amendment states that somebody shall not be convicted under this Act. The intention of the Bill is to schedule a range of offences which came into being in the Criminal Justice Act 2006. I recently asked the Minister several questions about that Act. I should not have had to ask questions because the information should have been available to us as part of the Minister's justification for the Bill. I asked him the number of prosecutions commenced and convictions obtained, respectively, for the offence laid down by section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and about section 73 of that Act. He answered by saying that he had requested the Central Statistics Office to provide the statistics directly to me which suggests that he does not have the information to hand. Worse again, when I asked how often sections 28 to 30, inclusive, of the Criminal Justice Act 2007, had been used in court proceedings he said that in the time available it was not possible for the Garda authorities to supply those details.

The facts I sought are the justification for much of this Bill and the other basis, which the Minister has repeatedly presented, is the idea that there was an increase in incidents of jury and witness intimidation. When he was asked to prove this he indicated that the Garda Commissioner had told him as much. The Minister told me the exact opposite in his reply to a question on Tuesday when I asked about the number of suspected or proven instances of jury intimidation and tampering, as opposed to that of witnesses. In the answer the Minister said he could not differentiate between the two because that is not the way the statistics are produced.

The Minister submitted a table where both were included which proved the exact opposite of the Minister's contention. There seems to have been a substantial decrease in jury and witness tampering. In 2006, there were 44 prosecutions commenced, although the information does not detail what the results were. Last year, there was more than a 60% decrease on that because only 16 cases were taken. This was 16 too many but one would have to go back to 2002 before the number of proceedings taken because of jury or witness tampering was lower.

In 2003 and 2004 there were 30 incidents in each year, in 2005 there were 22 incidents, in 2006 there were 44 and then the number falls to 16 in both 2007 and 2008. The basis for every aspect of this legislation was that these incidents were at an all-time high but the Minister's own facts have proven the opposite.

The amendment is welcome but the section and Bill itself must be opposed, rather that us trying to amend it. It was produced on a rushed basis and neither the facts nor the Minister's own words back it up. There is a major doubt about this process because of its rushed nature and the fact that we do not have the information to make an informed judgment. We have not heard the voices of those working in the field.

I have highlighted the need to properly resource An Garda Síochána to the fullest extent in order to deal with the major crime problems which have been highlighted and which we see every day in my own constituency and a number of others. Gangland crime is increasing and is becoming more vicious and ruthless but it must be dealt with by existing legislation and a properly resourced Garda Síochána.

See this speech in context