Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputies who have spoken on this debate and thank them for their overall support of the Bill. Deputies Flanagan, Rabbitte, Ó Snodaigh, Cuffe and others all gave it a broad welcome. The broad agreement is indicative of the general recognition of the need to address the concerns of victims of crime and to assist them in dealing with their experiences. There was a difference between Deputy Flanagan and myself on how to achieve those ends. Fine Gael promoted a Bill which took on board the practice of other jurisdictions, but I feel it is far better to deal with this on a non-statutory basis.

I have established a victims of crime office in my Department and, along with the commission for the support of victims of crime, it is providing the support groups with substantial assistance, financial and otherwise. I do not accept Deputy Ó Snodaigh's comment that I did not liaise with victims' groups. I spent a day with a victims' group in the Croke Park Hotel before I brought forward these proposals. They expressed great satisfaction with the way in which I and my officials dealt with the situation and they subsequently gave a broad welcome to the provisions of this Bill and the setting up of the victims of crime office. This is a dedicated office with civil servants who assist victims and victims' groups.

The Bill gives strong expression to the victim's rights to contribute at the sentencing stage in a trial. It is a matter of considerable satisfaction that we are recognising that persons other than the direct victim are hurt and damaged by crime. The Bill makes generous provision for the rights of the wider family to participate in the victim impact process.

One of the Bill's other main achievements is to ensure those whose acquittals are undeserved cannot expect to enjoy immunity from further prosecution. Deputy Ó Snodaigh is right that we need to be careful. Any change to an existing acquittal will only be based on court authorisation. Making retrials possible will boost confidence and respect for our legal processes, and that must be welcomed. It is only the latest of a number of initiatives in recent years that ensures our laws and procedures are adapted to enable the prosecution authorities deal with current circumstances. The Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009 is another example where the thought processes have been changed on how to deal with surveillance.

The re-trial possibilities presented by this Bill will be of particular interest and consolation to victims and their families. There can be no greater scandal for a victim than to see his or her assailant enjoying the fruits of an undeserved acquittal. This Bill offers a real possibility of addressing this unacceptable situation.

Deputy Flanagan and his colleagues argue that the EU framework decision can have effect only if enshrined in legislation. This is at variance with the facts. Much of the support for victims is delivered through voluntary effort. Over the years, many of the support groups have developed remarkable expertise in their particular area of interest. This expertise and the outstanding commitment of the personnel involved ensures a service that is responsive to victims, that can be accessed by them quickly and in the knowledge that they will be treated sympathetically. My role is to support and encourage those dedicated people who run the support groups. I am pleased to say that my Department's funding has been substantial in recent years, with over €6 million granted between 2005 and 2010, rising from €685,000 in 2005 to over €1.25 million in 2009. That level is likely to be maintained this year.

We have an effective victim support system. It would be unwise to impose a statutory framework when there is no evidence to suggest that such a framework would improve on current arrangements. Therefore, I will continue to address victim's concerns through a combination of legislative changes, as well as support for voluntary effort.

The victims' charter is central to the support systems for victims. I can tell the House that work on a revised charter is progressing very well. The charter is much more than just a list of services provided to victims of crime by a wide range of criminal justice agencies, even though that of itself is very helpful to victims. Its real importance lies in the fact that it represents firm, public commitments to put the care and support for victims at the centre of the services those agencies provide. I hope to be in a position to publish the new charter in the not too distant future.

Deputy Rabbitte mentioned the recent document by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties that deals with the Bill. I have examined the document and I am pleased to note council's general welcome for the proposals on victim impact evidence. However, I was disappointed to see the comment that there should have been more consultation with the victim support groups. Clearly, the ICCL is unaware of the extensive consultation process undertaken during late 2006 and early 2007 by the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group, whose report and recommendations provide a basis for many of the Bill's proposals. Neither is the ICCL aware that I organised and hosted a day-long meeting with support groups from all over the country in September 2008. The groups welcomed the fact that the consultation took place and most of them were complimentary about the way in which we addressed the situation, both from an administrative point of view and a legislative point of view. The consultations continued during 2009. The commission for the support of victims of crime organised two meetings of the consultative forum. I attended these meetings and the developments relating to the Bill were outlined and discussed. There has been extensive and structured consultation and I cannot therefore accept what the ICCL claims on that point.

The ICCL states that the case has not been made for a change to re-trial proposals. Its members obviously have not read the review group report. The group set out the case clearly. Does the ICCL think we should wait until a case arises where the procedure could be employed, only to find we are unable to do so because we failed to provide a legal basis in good time? Delay, as advocated by the ICCL, would only deny victims the benefit of the changes I am now proposing.

The ICCL suggests the solution to undeserved acquittals lies in revamping the witness support arrangements, but it is missing the point. To suggest that new evidence will arise only when a previously intimidated witness comes forward is not in line with the facts. New evidence is more likely to result from confessions or from new forensic evidence. Even in the case of tainted acquittals, the perjury or whatever the taint happens to be can easily be the result of a misguided witness hoping to assist the defendant, not as a result of intimidation. I had hoped for a well argued, soundly based commentary from the ICCL. However, I am afraid the analysis offered in this document has added little to the debate.

Deputy English raised the issue of Garda numbers. By the end of 2009, Garda numbers reached 14,550, with 232 students in training. The Deputy also spoke about the witness protection programme. Putting this on a statutory basis would not give the Garda Síochána the flexibility that is required, and this is a view that has been expressed many times by Garda management. The Garda management also make the point that because we have a closely knit community in Ireland, there is a severe reluctance on the part of people who have been the victims of serious crime and who have been involved in serious cases to go into the witness protection system. I have tried to encourage a number of people involved in such cases to go into the system, but they have shown a great reluctance to do so, even though they are in severe danger. They do not want to give up family, friends and locality. They do not want to start a new life in another country.

The desire to opt out of participating in this way does not appear to be the case in many other countries, particularly in the US. This is probably due to two factors, namely, that the populations in these countries are much larger and that communities there are much less tightly knit than is the case in Ireland. The operation of the witness protection programme is supported by complementary legislative provision. For example, section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 makes it an offence for any person, without lawful authority, to try to identify the whereabouts or new identity of a witness who may be relocated under the programme.

A number of Deputies referred to the definitions of "family member" and "civil partner" in respect of victim impact statements. As the House is aware, it is hoped that Committee Stage of the Civil Partnership Bill will be taken at the end of this month. I intend to amend that legislation in order to provide specific reference to the ability of a civil partner to make a victim impact statement. The position is already catered for in this Bill. The new section 5(6) to be inserted into the 1993 Act states that a family members is:

(a) a spouse or partner of the person,

(b) a child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the person,

(c) a person who is acting in loco parentis to the person,

(d) a dependant of the person, or

(e) any other person whom the court considers to have had a close connection with the person;

When the Bill is passed, it will be possible for the court to determine that a civil partner is capable of being included under this section. As already stated, however, the position will be made more explicit when the Civil Partnership Bill is passed.

I thank Members for the general compliments they uttered in respect of the Bill. What we are doing represents a significant step and it is not one that is taken lightly in any criminal justice system. The Bill will facilitate the reopening of trials. As already stated, when I entered office one of the reports I read from cover to cover was that of the balance in the criminal law review group. I thank the members of that review group, particularly its chairperson, Mr. Gerard Hogan S.C., for their report, which provided us with a good grounding to make, like other jurisdictions, progress in this area. I expect that, in the context of retrials, the legislation will be used sparingly and only with judicial authorisation.

There are circumstances where a person acquitted of murder can walk outside the court and confess to the crime. Under existing legislation, he or she could not be prosecuted. That is both grossly unfair and wrong. The new Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Bill 2010, the Second Stage debate on which is due to commence in a few moments, will dramatically alter the landscape as it relates to investigations. Given that we are learning from experience and taking on best international practice in respect of DNA and forensics, the criminal justice system should have the wherewithal - if new DNA evidence comes to light and where an acquittal was undeserved - in limited circumstances to change an acquittal in fairness to everyone concerned. I again thank Members for their compliments in respect of the Bill.

See this speech in context