Results 961-980 of 11,444 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Order of Business (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: NUI students have also raised this. The money is not being spent on improved student facilities. Debates are needed on funding for the third level sector and early childhood education. I have called for a debate on early childhood education many times and I would like it to be taken as a matter of urgency.

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I support Senator Regan's amendments. Earlier, we debated other amendments concerning the treatment of victims. At that stage the Minister stated in his view it was not appropriate to place those in statutory form. I anticipate he may take the same view in respect of these amendments and I am conscious that some of the provisions are already carried out in practice, notably, that an...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: Perhaps I was too stingy with my compliment.

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 32: In page 11, line 11, to delete "Court of Criminal Appeal" and substitute "Supreme Court". This amendment is self-explanatory. In my contribution on Second Stage of the Bill I noted that the May 2007 report by the expert group on balance in the criminal law gave rise to many of the provisions made in this Bill. My amendment seeks to give effect to the report's...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I should have noted that the Government's long-standing policy has been to abolish the Court of Criminal Appeal. Legislation introduced in 1995 envisaged the subsumption of the Court of Criminal Appeal into the Supreme Court but it has not yet been commenced. I do not clearly understand why the Attorney General has taken the view outlined by the Minister. I will withdraw my amendment in...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I hope that Mrs. Justice Susan Denham's recommendations will be taken on board. The piecemeal development of the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal is the difficulty, largely due to the constantly shifting judges. I do not mean this as any criticism of the individual judges but different judges have sat making it hard to see a...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 33: In page 11, line 20, after "adduced" to insert "by the prosecution". This amendment is intended to be more precise about the definition of "new and compelling evidence" in section 7 where the provision states: "which could not, with the exercise of due diligence, have been adduced during those proceedings,". We want to clarify the type of evidence being described....

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I will not press the amendment at this stage but there is a certain ambiguity in the wording of the section because there could be evidence which was known to the defence during the trial but "which could not, with the exercise of due diligence, have been adduced" by the prosecution.

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 34: In page 11, line 26, after "concerned" to insert the following: ", for example DNA evidence or an admission by the person concerned". This seeks to amend the definition of "new and compelling evidence". The phrase used is "new and compelling" meaning evidence which is reliable, substantial and of a high degree of probity, in other words it implicates the person with...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: It is not envisaged in the section that just because DNA evidence comes forward that it is necessarily new and compelling, because it obviously must implicate the person concerned with a high degree of probability and be compelling apart from that. I can envisage a situation where DNA evidence which might not emerge during the trial might not offer anything new or compelling to implicate the...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I disagree with Senator Regan. I am glad to see it is prospective only because there would be constitutional difficulties if it was not so. I am also glad the Minister has confirmed the safeguards that apply to section 8, even though I know we are straying into section 8. These safeguards are welcome and my amendments to section 8 are aimed at trying to clarify the safeguards and ensure...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: Yes. I presumed we would deal with that when dealing with section 8.

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 35: In page 12, subsection (5), line 36, after "concerned" to insert the following: "and the person may appear and be heard by the Court". The amendment is self explanatory. It seeks that the person in respect of whom the application is made has the right of appearance before the court. It is already implicit in subsection (5) that if the DPP has to give notice to the...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I will withdraw the amendment in light of what the Minister has said but I would like clarification on the relationship to section 16, or at least an indication from the Minister that he will address my concern about the section given that he stated that one of the safeguards in section 8 is that the person will be at liberty in respect of this with regard to the offence of which they have...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 36: In page 12, subsection (6), line 38, after "Court" to insert the following: "if satisfied that the Director has given the person concerned all reasonable notice to facilitate his or her appearance and". This amendment provides an extra test for the court before it may proceed to hear and determine the application in the absence of the person. Given what the Minister...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I am interested in the Minister's use of language which illustrates why we must be so careful with section 8 to ensure there are sufficient safeguards. The Minister commented on a person absconding but we are talking about a person who has been acquitted.

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: The person is not subject to any criminal charge.

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I know "abscond" is not a legal term but the use of the word implies that the person would leave with the charge hanging over them in some way. This clearly deals with somebody who has been acquitted. There is no time limit on section 8 so when the section commences, somebody could be acquitted and five years down the line the DPP might move an application under the section because new...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I have spoken on section 8. I welcome the safeguards and the fact the section will only operate prospectively. My amendments were designed to ensure the safeguards were watertight for the person acquitted in respect of section 8 applications and I intend to press the second amendment on Report Stage. I ask the Minister for clarification of the relationship between sections 8, 9, 16 and 23...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) (2 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: Will the Minister deal with the issue raised in section 16?