Dáil debates

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Criminal Procedure Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Second Stage

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

-----and I know he will eventually come around to talking about it but some very serious issues were raised in that report. Obviously, the Minister is the sort who puts on the green jersey and says: "I am the Minister for Justice, my job is to defend the Garda Síochána and is it not terrible what they are saying on the other side of the House?" What we are saying on this side of the House is intended to assist the Garda Síochána and the very many thousands of people in the force who want to do their job in accordance with modern management practice and best practice in general.

The 25 or 27 recommendations in that report are very worrying. In the land of the Celtic tiger, I do not know how we reached the year 2010 when the assistant chief of the association of garda sergeants and inspectors can say on the radio that most Garda stations in Ireland do not have e-mail. It is little wonder that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

I do not know what action the Minister is taking on that report. He was preceded by similarly stellar personalities, including the former Minister, Michael McDowell, and the present Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. Over all those years the chant was "Garda reform". Then along came the woman from Boston who put together a report on the actuality on the ground. One wonders then about all that huffing and puffing. Does the Minister remember the whirlwind the former Minister, Mr. McDowell, created about the Garda reserve force? One is left with the conclusion that it was a smokescreen, meant to divert from more fundamental issues. I know the Minister would not engage in anything like that but he must ask the Government Whip to provide time in this House so that we can debate that report and hear the Minister's assessment and that of his officials in regard to it.

We could be passing law in this Chamber until the cows come home but if it is ignored, not invoked or not implemented, for whatever reason, whether through lack of resources or modern management techniques, inadequate technology or other resources necessary for the Garda Síochána not being provided, then we are wasting our time in making new laws and adding to those that are not being implemented.

I broadly welcome the Bill the Minister introduced to the House today. My colleague in the other House, Senator Bacik, raised some points I would like to tease out with the Minister on Committee Stage. For example, and to give the Minister notice, she raised the question of the court to which application is to be made being the Court of Criminal Appeal. She said that was not envisaged by the review group which made various criticisms of the manner in which the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal has developed. The group specifically recommended that greater rationality - its term - be brought to bear on the piecemeal - its term - development of the jurisdiction of that court. The review group was of the view that it would be appropriate for appeals against acquittals to be brought to the Supreme Court. In regard to double jeopardy the group recommended that the prosecution right could be exercised if the Supreme Court so decided. In other words, it recommends that this should be a matter for the Supreme Court rather than for the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Senator Bacik also raised concerns about certain provisions of the Bill, namely, whether its restrictions are adequate. She said, for example, that under section 16 the District Court may approve the arrest and detention of an acquitted person in respect of whom no retrial order has yet been made. In other words, the Garda can seek right of re-arrest from the District Court before an acquittal has been set aside and a retrial ordered. As a constitutional lawyer, she said she is not convinced that would necessarily be constitutional. As the Senator suggested, I suppose there is always the danger of flight. It may be considered overall in the interests of justice and the public interest that the procedure as envisaged in the Bill should go ahead. However, I would like to hear the Minister address that point. Is he satisfied that it is compliant with the Constitution?

I refer the Minister to the submission which I am sure he has received on this matter from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. I do not want to see a pained expression come over the Minister's face because, believe it or not, broadly that body is in agreement with him. That is a day he should celebrate and be happy.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.