Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

This Bill represents a welcome step towards finally transposing the victims directive into Irish law. Establishing minimum standards regarding the rights of victims and their entitlement to protection and support is an important element of the State's obligations to the victims of crime. I am grateful that several issues which were raised during the course of the debate on the sexual offences legislation have been provided for in this Bill.

The establishment of a communications and victim liaison unit within the DPP is a welcome development. There are several questions around the role of the DPP to which we do not receive satisfactory answers.

It is often impossible for victims and others to understand why the DPP's office has not proceeded with a prosecution. While recognising the clear need to ensure an obvious separation of powers, accountability is important and there is a concern about a lack of accountability on the part of the DPP.

When examining the details of the Grace case during the week, I noted that the Garda had carried out a number of investigations down the years. It referred cases to the DPP on five different occasions, but prosecution was not recommended any of those times. In light of what we know at this point, an explanation is needed and the question of whether there is a pattern or a reluctance to prosecute in particular cases needs to be researched. Without going into the detail of specific cases, some kind of explanation should be given where, for example, there have been shortcomings in the law or the preparation of cases. The public needs to know why, in what appears to be a large number of cases, the DPP does not recommend prosecutions. Glaringly, no action has been taken on some recommendations and reports from tribunals that have been referred to the DPP. This applies to the Garda as well. There is a lack of accountability. In the absence of any kind of explanation, even at a global level, one cannot help but wonder whether there is something wrong.

I welcome the proposal on a protective services bureau within the Garda. It represents the sort of victim-centric approach that is needed in our justice system. When I raised the matter of individual assessments with the Tánaiste last month, I was pleased to hear that the Garda had put in place the IT infrastructure to facilitate the bureau. All that we can do at this point is hope that the infrastructure is adequately resourced and proper training is provided. Creating the infrastructure is one thing, but ensuring that it is it widely available and officers are trained to operate it are critical factors. As with many aspects of the legislation, the actions are welcome but dependent on adequate resources being provided.

All too often, victims find themselves adrift in the unfamiliar waters of criminal proceedings or facing into undue bureaucracy. For this reason, any step that can be taken and any resource that can be put in place to mitigate against that would be welcome. However, transposition of the directive only represents the minimum protections required. The Bill can represent a significant opportunity for us to progress the area of victims' rights. In addition to passing the legislation, it is important that we avail of the opportunity to put victims front and centre in the response to crime. With that in mind, we should be ambitious and strive to achieve the greatest possible level of protection. I hope that the Tánaiste will be open to amendments that reflect some of the criticisms and strong points that have been made by groups, such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, and Rape Crisis Network Ireland.

The victims' directive requires member states to ensure that access to victim support services is facilitated at the earliest point following a crime. This access is not dependent on a victim making a formal complaint or a formal investigation being launched. Victims are entitled to this status regardless of whether an offender is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and irrespective of the relationship between the offender and the victim. Other Deputies have referred to how there is sometimes a problem with a lack of protection for common law couples. It is certainly not the same type of protection that is provided to married couples.

The IHREC has recommended that the definition of "victim" used within the Bill be expanded to reflect this language. Doing so would place beyond doubt that, to be considered a victim, the offender does not need to be identified, apprehended or prosecuted. While victims should be encouraged and facilitated to make reports wherever possible, the reality is that many crimes go unreported. Given the evidence of this in terms of sexual and other serious crimes, steps must be taken to ensure that access to support services for victims is in place before a formal complaint is made.

Anecdotally, it would appear that such under-reporting is also highly prevalent in cases of hate crime. While the directive does not require specific hate crime legislation, the deficiencies in the reporting and prosecution of hate crime can make it difficult for victims to come forward and often leads to secondary victimisation. While the Bill acknowledges instances of crimes committed with a bias or discriminatory motive, it does not include specific protections for victims of hate crimes.

Section 16 will provide for the special measures that I mentioned to be placed on a statutory footing. However, will the Tánaiste outline why she chose to limit the application of these measures? Under the Bill's current wording, they "may" be implemented. Given that the Bill contains exemptions from providing for these measures in certain circumstances, would it not be more appropriate to state that these measures "shall be" provided where appropriate? The current wording is sufficiently qualified in terms of certain circumstances, so it would be preferable to use the term "shall be".

Under section 4(1), certain special measures will only be available to victims engaged in cases where criminal proceedings have commenced after the legislation comes into force. I understand that the trial judge may apply these measures to be implemented even when no individual assessment of the victim's specific protection needs has taken place. If so, then it seems unnecessary to limit who can access these measures based on the date criminal proceedings were instituted. I endorse Deputy Broughan's point about Ireland seemingly having a slow-moving justice system. In other jurisdictions, perpetrators of crime are made amenable more quickly. Given the implications of that for the victims and affected communities, it is difficult to understand why our system moves so slowly. For this reason, making it so that this legislation is only effective going forward would be a missed opportunity.

When an assessment takes place, there does not seem to be a requirement for it to be provided to the trial judge. Rape Crisis Network Ireland has suggested that there should be a specific obligation on the prosecutor to give the judge a copy of every report that comes into his or her possession.

While this may not require a statutory footing, those are the sort of administrative and operational aspects that are vital for the functioning of the directive. As recommended by the European Commission, it is crucial that the commencement of this legislation be accompanied by appropriate non-legislative measures, and a far wider public awareness of people's rights under this law. The victims' directive requires the establishment of processes to guarantee access by victims to information on their case. The process must be transparent and not overly bureaucratic. Under section 7 the onus is placed on the victim to make a request for information from the relevant body. However, depending on the stage of the matter, that could be the Garda, the DPP, GSOC, or a number of other agencies. In practice, that could lead to victims being passed from one agency to another, or facing an uphill battle against bureaucracy. For that reason, would the Minister consider establishing a central point of contact or single liaison for victims? Even if this was on a non-statutory basis, it would be a positive to streamline the

information request process wherever possible and could ensure that a minimum standard and timeframe of reply would be kept to following the request.

The list of information to which victims should have access should also be extended to include information on the bail conditions of the accused and the protections in place to protect victims from breaches of bail condition or intimidation. We have all come across situations where a victim has come forward to make a complaint or has reported a crime, very often putting himself of herself in considerable danger, and the expectation is that when proceedings start it will only be a matter of time before the perpetrator is brought to book, yet he or she can go outside and see the perpetrator walking around the neighbourhood or, worse, approaching the house or engaging in practices that are very intimidating. That is hugely disturbing and worrying for the victim concerned. For that reason there must be a much greater level of information exchange and the victim must be informed of the conditions of bail.

On that front also an issue arises in this country in terms of anti-social behaviour, some of which can be of a most serious nature. We are all familiar with it as it happens in many housing estates. Such a crime is extremely difficult to address adequately. Inherent in anti-social behaviour and crime is intimidation and threatening behaviour, in particular the threat of violence against an individual or his or her child. When attempts are made to deal with that at community level, the Garda tells people they must come forward and give evidence. People take huge risks in coming forward to give evidence and report crimes. In spite of the Garda being aware of it and the possibility that several charges have been made against a perpetrator, and a strong awareness locally of the threatening activity of the perpetrator, decisions are taken at court level in terms of granting bail. That is a significant disincentive for victims of serious anti-social activity to come forward. It is a huge disincentive and discouragement to residents' groups who are trying to work with the Garda and local authorities to tackle serious anti-social behaviour, and an enormous disincentive to people to take that courageous step and report a crime. There is a real issue about the need to inform and train judges and the legal profession generally in terms of the impact of some elements of community crime on vulnerable communities and individuals. On a regular basis there is evidence of a complete lack of appreciation of what it means to release somebody on bail into the community the person has been targeting and in many ways devastating over a long period. There is a lack of appreciation of that on the part of the Judiciary in particular and that is an issue that must be addressed.

Fundamentally, we must ensure that a minimum standard of support and uniformity of treatment is in place for all victims. The current wording of the Bill does not specify the importance of referrals to services which are suitable for the victim's specific characteristics and situation. The Rape Crisis Network has recommended that the Bill be amended to reflect more closely the wording of the directive. Doing so would address the concern that rural dwellers will be disadvantaged due to the limited catchment areas of some of the voluntary agencies that support the provision of victims' services throughout the country. That, again, raises the question of resources. When it comes to support services and many social services there is a geographic lottery and for that reason it would be very helpful if there was a centralised approach in terms of referral and then access to regionalised support services. Such support services and social services generally must be adequately resourced. One can have all the legislation one likes but if the support services are not in place then people will simply not come forward and in many ways they will continue to suffer in silence. While the legislation is welcome it is only as good as the funding and support services that are provided in order to underpin it.

The Bill is most welcome. The points I have raised on the operation of the Bill, per se, are technical points. The goal of the Bill and many of its provisions are to be warmly welcomed. It has the potential to have a significant impact on the lives of victims and how they experience the criminal justice system. However, it is important that we get it right and ensure the strongest possible model is commenced. In that regard I trust the Minister will be open to amendments from this side of the House on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context