Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This Bill is designed to provide for the mutual recognition of judgments and decisions among member states of the EU on probation and bail and alternative sanctions in order that these can be served out and supervised in jurisdictions other than the one in which they were handed down. Sinn Féin has no objection to the Bill, which will have the effect of allowing, for example, an Irish resident who is sentenced to a period of probation while temporarily in another member state of the EU to return home and be supervised by the Irish Probation Service for the duration of that probation, rather than having to stay for that time abroad. It will also allow someone from - that is to say, resident in - another member state who is found guilty and convicted of an offence in Ireland, for which he or she is handed down a period of probation by the court, to return to his or her country of residence under the supervision of the probation service in that jurisdiction. For example, a person from abroad attending a rugby match in Dublin may end up being charged with assault and given two years' probation by the courts. He will be able to go home and have the probation supervised in his home state instead of having to stay here to observe the conditions of his probation.

It is important that the rights of accused persons charged with offences abroad are protected, just as it is important that victims are protected by ensuring that non-resident accused persons fulfil their bail conditions. It is also preferable to reduce the detention of a person pretrial in this jurisdiction if the same conditions can be enforced in his or her home state. The enforcement of bail conditions in the EU member state in which a person is ordinarily and legally resident makes sense for everyone concerned.

This Bill will facilitate cross-border recognition of bail conditions in EU member states. Here again, we come up against the potential problems of Brexit. I hope that a relevant amendment can be made to ensure that the conditions that apply in the Bill will also prevail in respect of Britain and the North after Brexit. The measures in the Bill are important to protect the rights of accused persons who face trial in another EU jurisdiction while also ensuring there is a legal basis for the enforcement of bail conditions in other member states. The Bill implements EU Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention of the accused.

It is the way of the world that thousands of people fall foul of the law and are caught up in and charged with offences, big and small, while they are temporarily abroad in other member states. What this Bill basically does is afford such persons the same protection as they would have at home and give the courts the same options for dealing with them as courts in their home jurisdiction. The proposals ensure that the courts have the same options in dealing with non-residents as they have with residents of each EU member state and that member state criminal justice systems can recognise and enforce one another's judgments as EU citizens move freely around the European Union.

There is also the facility of the European arrest warrant to ensure that if someone does not return to face trial or judicial processing in the other jurisdiction, he or she can be surrendered under that facility. I noted when introducing the Bill that the Minister emphasised that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and that this measure will ensure that a person charged with an offence in another member state will not suffer a disproportionate interference in his or her life before facing trial on those charges. As the Minister said, these proposals allow an accused person to maintain ties with family and continue employment or education in his or her home country while awaiting trial. He also said that by providing for the enforcement of bail conditions and return of the person for trial, the Bill also puts in place the necessary protections for victims and the public.

I wish to raise a matter which, although outside the scope of this Bill, is very much relevant to its context and the principles expressed in the Minister's contribution. I refer to the case of two US army veterans, who I understand wrote to the Minister recently about their situation, namely, Ken Mayers from New Mexico and Tarak Kauff from New York. One of these gentlemen is aged 82, while the other is 77. Both have been unable to travel home to visit their families for the past six months. They have been awaiting trial for non-violent action at Shannon Airport last St. Patrick's Day. The two men were arrested at the airport on 17 March when they tried to inspect an Omni Air International aircraft which was on its way to Kuwait. The veterans believed it was carrying US troops and weapons in violation of international law. The men have been charged with trespass and causing €2,500 worth of criminal damage to the perimeter fence of the airport. They also had their passports taken from them as part of their bail conditions. While recognising that the Minister cannot interfere in the administration of justice in the courts, his claim that accused persons do not suffer disproportionate interference in their lives before facing trial, as well as his affirmation that he is in favour of proposals to allow an accused person to maintain ties with family and continue employment or education in his or her home country while awaiting trial in the case of EU citizens, should also apply to these two gentlemen.

I know they have written to the Minister. While it may not be appropriate to interfere in a case, there needs to be good efforts from the Minister's office to deal with this situation. I have met these two men. They were here in Leinster House last week and are advanced in age. They are very principled. I state in the context of them being allowed to return to their home country. They engaged in this campaign to highlight this situation and, if they come to trial, they will immediately return to this jurisdiction. They stated that they would swim the Atlantic to do so because they are determined to raise this issue, about which they are very passionate. Anything that can be done to give these two men the opportunity to return to the United States to meet their families and continue their lives would be most appropriate. In the meantime, we support this Bill and its provisions for the mutual recognition of supervision measures. We hope the Minister will consider the particular aspect that I have brought to his attention. These two men may be citizens of the US, but we have an obligation to them. From a humanitarian perspective, it is something that should be looked at very seriously.

See this speech in context