Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

The Minister did a disservice to himself and his office in the context of the manner in which he ridiculed and dismissed the Bill brought forward by Deputy Shatter and I on the occasion to which I refer. I remind him that the purpose of said Bill was to give the victims of crime comprehensive statutory rights under our law for the first time. Its provisions required that the State and its agencies should inform the victims of crime of the appropriate and necessary services available to them. In addition, victims would be kept fully informed of progress made in the investigation of crimes reported by them, the progress before the courts of any prosecution initiated and the outcome of any court proceedings relating to an alleged or convicted offender in respect of the offence committed. It must also include the outcome of any court proceedings relating to an alleged or convicted offender in respect of the offence. Moreover, following conviction, victims should be entitled to make representations on the application of a convicted offender for parole or release.

The Fine Gael Bill sought to introduce a greater level of transparency and accountability into this aspect of the criminal justice system. Recently, a case was brought to my attention in which a convicted criminal, jailed for a serious assault on a young woman, confronted his victim at a supermarket checkout three years after he was jailed. The unfortunate victim had no information that the perpetrator of a vicious and serious assault upon her had been released from prison prior to the completion of his full sentence. The Minister will agree this is unacceptable. Whatever measures are necessary must be taken to ensure such situations do not occur. It is essential legislation is adequately and properly enforced and resourced.

The Fine Gael Bill provided that an onus be placed on State agencies to provide information to the victim or the victim's family on the supports they can provide. It also contains provisions ensuring information was given to victims and their families on the matter of the investigation; the proceedings; the range of penalties, ASBOs – few of which have been issued by the courts despite the Minister's assertions to the contrary; parole board applications by a convicted person; and the anticipated release date of a convicted person. It sought to ensure victims had an opportunity to make representations to court in respect of bail applications by the accused; victims would be made aware of any breaches of bail conditions, if bail were granted; and the opportunity to make representations to the parole board or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the release date of a prisoner.

The Minister rightly referred to the constitutional independence of the courts. However, there is a grey area in how the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can exercise a quasi-judicial function in signing off on parole or early release. If the Minister is to remain independent of sentencing matters, then allowing the Minster to exercise judgment on the commuting of a prisoner's sentence runs contrary to this. This is a matter that should be examined on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context