Results 3,441-3,460 of 4,915 for speaker:Jim O'Keeffe

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: It might be accepted too. I am glad to hear views emerge around an approach that is important, namely, that we formulate an approach that will stop people accused of serious charges being acquitted on purely technical grounds. The Tánaiste mentioned the original Kenny case. It is interesting that in that case the accused was charged with possession of drugs found as a result of a search of...

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: My recollection of the provisions of the Bail Act is that a serious offence is characterised as one which, on conviction, carries a penalty of more than five years.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: We are trying to ensure that as much relevant information as possible will be placed before the courts when decisions relating to bail are being made. I approve of the requirement that information relating to a person's sources of income within the preceding three years, to his or her property, whether inside or outside the State, and to his or her previous convictions be made available. As...

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: Piracy.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: In this instance I support the formulation proposed by the Tánaiste. I always had the view that a judge, in coming to a decision on bail, should take into account the views of the Garda Síochána. This is particularly relevant in light of the previous record of the accused and his or her associations with other people. A garda should be able to offer a view that there is a likelihood of...

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: Perhaps we might hear the Tánaiste.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: Will the Tánaiste take a question on this issue, in the interests of clarification?

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: Is there a danger that we are introducing another exclusionary rule? What about a superintendent, inspector, sergeant or ordinary member of the force?

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: Such people appear to be precluded from giving an opinion.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: Of course they can give a view on the likelihood of somebody turning up for trial or intimidating a witness, for example, but they seem to be precluded from giving evidence——

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: ——or outlining their views on whether the person might commit another serious offence.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: It does not have to be a chief superintendent at all then.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: It is a form of heavyweight evidence.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: I am concerned that the way this section is framed will mean that a statement of this nature given by somebody below the rank of chief superintendent will not be admissible as evidence. In other words, it will be decided that refusal of the application is reasonable necessary for the purposes of——

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: I am somewhat worried that the outcome of this provision may be controversy, at a minimum. At worst, it may lead to such evidence being excluded.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: It is not solely or mainly sufficient.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: I move amendment No. 37: In page 12, line 11, after "bail" to insert "and shall otherwise be of good behaviour". This amendment deals with the recognisance that must be entered into by somebody released on bail. The section states: "(a) the recognisance shall, in addition to the condition requiring his or her appearance before the court at the end of the period of remand of the accused...

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: If that is the legal advice available to the Minister I am certainly listening to it. Other people advising me raised the question as to why section 9 proposes to remove the requirement to be of good behaviour. I will have to take the Minister on trust on this issue and I will not press the amendment.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: I will not delay on this point. It has traditionally been a requirement to be on good behaviour——

Criminal Justice Bill 2007: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage (24 Apr 2007)

Jim O'Keeffe: It was also traditionally the case for somebody released on bail. Why reduce and minimise the conduct expected from somebody who is released on bail?