Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason the witness protection programme has not been put on a statutory footing; and his view on judicial criticism of the operation of the programme. [42103/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The witness security programme was established in 1997 under the direct operational control and administration of the Garda Commissioner. The programme was established in response to attempts by criminal and other groups to prevent the normal functioning of the criminal justice system, including threats of violence and systematic intimidation of witnesses.

Although legislation was not required to establish the programme, it was recognised that complementary legislative provisions might be required in due course. A number of provisions were subsequently enacted in the Criminal Justice Act 1999. Under these provisions, it is an offence for any person, without lawful authority, to try to identify the whereabouts or new identity of a witness who has been relocated under the programme and for a person to intimidate or put in fear any person who is assisting the Garda Síochána in the investigation of an offence, or is a witness, potential witness, juror or potential juror in criminal proceedings, with the intention of obstructing, perverting or interfering with the course of justice. The programme has been very successful and it has demonstrably contributed to securing convictions against very serious organised crime figures.

In 2003 the Court of Criminal Appeal criticised aspects of the operation of the programme, in particular the perceived lack of sufficient structure to its operation. The programme's legal basis was not questioned and the Court of Criminal Appeal upheld its operation, as did the Supreme Court subsequently.

Nevertheless, in response to these criticisms, the Garda Commissioner immediately appointed an assistant commissioner to review the programme in its entirety. That review was substantially completed in 2005 and enhancements to the administration and operation of the programme have since been implemented. For obvious reasons of security, I am loath to detail these enhanced measures. However, the witness security programme now operates according to international best practice in the balancing of the needs of law enforcement with the needs of the protected witness. This includes separating those responsible for the criminal investigation from the management of the programme. There must be a Chinese wall between the two. Professional informant management protocols have been set up and the social and emotional needs of the protected witness are considered.

A number of policy matters arising from the Garda review remain under consideration by Garda management. As the final product of internal Garda considerations is not yet available, it would be premature of me to decide upon possible avenues of further progress, including the introduction of new legislation. The witness security programme constitutes only one element of the State's response to witness tampering and intimidation. The programme is primarily designed to facilitate persons who are prepared to give evidence against alleged erstwhile criminal associates and admittance to the programme may involve relocation and identity change. Such extensive protection measures may not be appropriate for all witnesses. The Garda Síochána continues to operate comprehensive police protection measures before, during and after the criminal trial involving witnesses outside the witness security programme.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The witness security programme is a major tool in combating gangland crime. I am not aware of the conviction of a major gangland crime figure in the past few years. I am concerned the programme is not being used to the extent it might. The review followed serious criticisms by Judge McCracken who indicated that the scheme was badly thought out and that clear guidelines were needed. The review seems to have been internal and interminable. Could a senior retired judge, in whom we could have absolute confidence, undertake an objective review of the scheme? Does the Minister accept my concerns?

The moneys expended under the scheme seem to be falling. In 2002 almost €1 million was spent, in 2003 and 2004 over €1 million was spent but the sum has fallen to half that amount in the past few years. Does the Minister accept that we should make greater use of the programme? We should follow international practice by ensuring the scheme has a statutory basis. Any common law country has a statutory basis for such a scheme.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some €1.1 million was spent each year in 2003 and 2004. In 2005 the amount was €540,000. These sums are for large capital sums in providing new identities, housing and arrangements for the families.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The declining sums give an indication of the declining use of the scheme.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not suggest the Deputy has the wrong end of the stick. Doubtless, he will agree that it is a demand led scheme. I make funds available and if the Garda Commissioner believed four or five times that amount was necessary for the administration of criminal justice, I would find the money. There are no external constraints.

The Deputy states we have not seen the fruits of the scheme, such as a major trial where the scheme is in operation, in recent times. I have not seen references or press reports of this scheme being used recently.

The Deputy makes a good point on objective independent assessment of the scheme. I have received assurances that it is operated to the standards of best international practice. I have also appointed three inspectors to ensure Irish police activity is conducted to the standards of best international practice. The Deputy referred to an external senior retired judge.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Someone from outside the system.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The inspectorate, under Ms Kathleen O'Toole, is another option. A review could assess how the scheme is operating and if it could be improved.

I am prepared to enhance the existing statutory arrangements if more protection is needed. Statutory protection is afforded to those in the scheme but if more is necessary, I would not hesitate. The best course of action is to determine whether the scheme is operating well and then to decide if further statutory provisions are necessary. I would be happy to do both.