Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Once again, I thank Deputy Broughan for bringing forward this matter for consideration. I appreciate what he is trying to do with this amendment. I have read the amendment carefully but it has several unintended consequences and it presents a few problems.

The amendment refers to the book of evidence in cases involving learners driving unaccompanied and/or without L plates. It would insert this into section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which deals with endorsements in cases of convictions or disqualification orders. That would hardly be the right place for it. What the amendment says is that the book of evidence in cases of learner drivers shall, in other words, must, include driving unaccompanied and driving without L plates following a fatal road traffic collision. I am sure the Deputy means the book of evidence would include evidence of driving unaccompanied if the driver was unaccompanied and driving without an L plate if the driver did not have an L plate. That is not what the amendment says, however. It says that in all cases involving a fatal road traffic collisions where a learner driver is the accused, the book of evidence must include evidence that he or she was unaccompanied and without L plates, even when neither was the case.

This amendment would involve taking a dangerous step into the prosecutorial process. The Garda investigates offences and submits files to the DPP. The DPP then decides whether to bring prosecutions and prepares the book of evidence based on what is relevant to the case in question. If unaccompanied driving is at issue in the case, then evidence for it will be included already. The idea that we should require certain types of evidence to be included in the book of evidence, rather than allowing the DPP to decide on what evidence to include on the basis of relevance to the case, would represent a major shift in law against the independence of the DPP and a significant change to the justice system. If the Oireachtas were to consider such a change, it would need to be done as an overall consideration of the role of the DPP. This is a significant amendment in a different and delicate area and it would affect the independence of the judicial system. These are matters of wide-ranging constitutional import. It would be rash in the extreme to attempt to set a precedent on them in this Bill. While I accept the thrust of Deputy Broughan's amendment, we are entering into a sensitive area whereby the DPP would be instructed on what evidence to bring forward. In any event, that is quite a serious unintended consequence which I would not wish to enter into with this legislation.

See this speech in context