Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The fact that we have the Bill is welcome, as are many of its provisions, but in the limited time available I will concentrate on the number of significant omissions and gaps in the Bill, which is supposed to transpose the Victims Directive into Irish law but excludes some of its most crucial ingredients. Other Members have made points around the issue of special measures for victims, the issue of restorative justice, the definition of a victim of crime and complaints by victims. The Bill is lacking on all of those fronts in that it does not fully transpose the directive and leaves us open to infringement proceedings by the EU Commission.

Yesterday we were privileged to have an excellent presentation at the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality by Ms Maria McDonald of the Victims Rights Alliance. Ms McDonald cited the shocking figure that 72% of the victims of crime feel re-victimised by the criminal justice system. It is particularly shocking when compared to the fact that 49% of them feel re-victimised by the accused. Therefore, victims are more oppressed by the State and its criminal justice system than the offender. We have seen countless examples of the harm being done to victims of crime in the litany of reports, such as Guerin, O'Higgins, the 2014 Garda Inspectorate report and the Victims Rights Alliance report on the implementation and enforcement of the directive. All of them categorically state the wrongs done to victims, particularly around issues such as the failure by gardaí to record crimes, the failure to provide information to victims, and cases of victims finding out about the outcome of a case involving them, either through the media or through the grapevine. They show the appalling treatment of those who have already been victimised.

The O'Higgins report was stark about victims being let down by the Garda. It is interesting that the Minister, at the time of its publication, referred to the findings being unacceptable as it was disheartening and that those concerned must take all measures open to them to ensure that these shortcomings are not repeated. However, they are being repeated. We would all be naive to think that the necessary reform outlined in the report has been delivered because it has not. I raised earlier, at Leaders' Questions, a number of the cases of those who have been the victims of appalling crime and have been re-victimised by the treatment they got when they turned to the Garda to get help in having those crimes investigated. If we do not deal with the issue of the urgent need for Garda reform we will not get the appropriate treatment for victims that they deserve.

In terms of the Bill's provisions the issue around not including restorative justice, from the point of view that the victims should be informed on first contact with the Garda of the available restorative justice services, should be addressed. Article 12 of the directive provides that where restorative justice services are available safeguards must be put in place to protect against repeat victimisation to ensure that victims have access to safe and competent restorative justice systems and to ensure that they are put forward in the best interests of the victim. All of this should have been provided for in the Bill because this is a most important provision, not only in terms of empowering the victim to confront his or her perpetrator in the appropriate surroundings but because it can have a profound effect on the offender as well in making that person understand the damage of the offence that he or she has caused.

If we get that right and implement it properly we will have fewer victims, which is the point we want to reach.

The point made that these services are not available on a nationwide or on a statutory basis is not a good enough excuse because we know that members of the Judiciary have put forward recommendations. In fairness, a very unsuitable one was cited at the justice committee yesterday where a judge asked a victim in a child sex abuse case to engage in the restorative justice system with the perpetrator who had not accepted the facts of the case, rejected the guilty verdict and clearly was somebody who had not acknowledged the damage he had done. Asking the victim to engage in that process was incredibly wrong, inappropriate and harmful. That is not the goal of restorative justice. The way the process is set up is very important but we need to put more resources into that.

The other area is the problematic definition of the victim that has been highlighted by other Deputies. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has made the point that the Bill should be amended to broaden the definition of a victim. We agree with that. Doing so would ensure that the services for victims provided for in it would not be dependent on the victim making a formal complaint or an offender being prosecuted or convicted. This is in line with the victims directive, which requires states to ensure that access to support services is facilitated at the earliest point following a crime and that access is not dependent on a formal complaint. The tight definition in this Bill is a significant failing which will have to be addressed at a later stage.

That is particularly pertinent in the area of domestic violence. We know from the 2014 Garda Inspectorate report the litany of the manner in which victims had been treated. They include gardaí being called out and saying, "There's two of them in it" or "Just don't annoy him and he will not come back". A really shocking example was where gardaí answered an emergency call to a home where a woman was being threatened by her husband and one of the gardaí said to the woman, "We've enough to be doing. The next time we won't call back". Later that day, the husband returned home, stabbed his wife in front of their child who was also injured protecting his mother. Both victims were taken to hospital, and it took three days to get a statement from that woman. Broadening this Bill to take in victims like that woman and her child would have a profound effect on gardaí in cases like hers. It would highlight and intensify their obligations and would work to ensure that such catastrophic errors would not be repeated. It is vitally important that we would examine that. We know that victims of domestic and sexual violence in particular are very hesitant to make a complaint. The inspectorate, in its many reports, provided several examples of where an investigating garda was directed by a district officer to put pressure on victims to make up their minds about whether they wanted to make a complaint, which is inappropriate. If victims had access to support and services to protect them, that would protect them from pressure from gardaí and would support them in their decision as to whether they wanted to complain formally. The victims directive refers to indirect victims of crime, for example, children who witness domestic violence. They should have the same access to support services.

On the other areas, Garda training and increased funding is absolutely necessary if it is to be meaningful. More funding and more resources are necessary. The evidence given yesterday at the committee was that clicking on the link of the victims support services on the Garda website brings one to a defunct commission of victims of crime service. That is wholly unacceptable in this day and age. We know that 64% of victims said they were not informed by the gardaí about victim support services, therefore the issue of resourcing must be addressed.

The area of training for the Judiciary is critical. Article 25 of the directive provides that officials likely to come into contact with victims should get specialist and general training appropriate to their level of contact with victims of crime to enable them to deal with the situation appropriately. I am aware there are plans to develop training for lawyers and so on but that must be extended to the Judiciary itself.

The other gap is section 16, which deals with special measures for very vulnerable victims. The section states that these may be used but the directive states that they shall be used. These supports include a victim to be interviewed by someone of the same sex in a sexual violence case and so on. There are many good reasons those should be mandatory and limited only by overall considerations.

The final point is to support the call made by the Rape Crisis Network and the Victims' Rights Alliance for the establishment of a victims ombudsman as a central point of contact for dealing with complaints. As it stands, the Bill provides for information to be given on how to complain to the Garda, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, but those organisations would not be fit for purpose in this regard and an Ombudsman office would be far preferable.

See this speech in context