Results 10,441-10,460 of 11,444 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (8 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for his reply. There is anecdotal evidence of some issues in the past but, clearly, this is not a matter on which there is hard and fast evidence. It is important that the court would have some guidance on what constitutes competence, and yet I have not been specific in the amendment in such a way that would tie the hands of the court either. The wording is appropriate.

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (8 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 9: In page 10, after line 48, to insert the following: 7.—In an application under this section the court may make such order as it sees fit to facilitate legal representation of a person in respect of whom an offence has been committed or a family member as appropriate, where it is appropriate to do so.". This amendment proposes to give power to the court to make an...

Seanad: Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (8 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 10: In page 11, line 11, to delete "Court of Criminal Appeal" and substitute "Supreme Court". We had a full debate on the merits of the Court of Criminal Appeal versus the Supreme Court. I will not go back over it except to state that my party followed the recommendations of the balance in the criminal law expert review group, which had recommended the Supreme Court be...

Seanad: Order of Business (8 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I ask the Leader for a debate on domestic violence in light of the fact that we are nearly at the end of Women's Aid's 16 Days Campaign to highlight the need to eliminate violence against women. We need a debate in this House on the way in which legislation, in particular, could be amended to ensure greater protection for victims of domestic violence and to ensure also greater applicability...

Seanad: Order of Business (4 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: It is about communication of change.

Seanad: Order of Business (4 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I express to the Leader the concern of the Labour Party group at the way in which business in this House was ordered or, more accurately, disordered this week. We have had a difficult week in terms of the ordering of business. I am not suggesting all the responsibility for that lies with the Leader but there have been quite a number of piecemeal, last minute and unilateral changes to the...

Seanad: Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin: Statements (3 Dec 2009)

Ivana Bacik: I welcome the publication of the Murphy report, which at last shines a light into a dark corner of our recent history. The report examined the period between 1975 and 2004 and its recommendations refer to ongoing issues of which we must take account. I commend Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy and her commission on the report's excellence and clarity of language. I am glad we have the opportunity...

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

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for clarifying that the person will be at liberty pending the hearing of an application under section 8. I understood him to state that prior to section 16 being brought into operation, the Director of Public Prosecutions must have already formed a view on the existence of new and compelling evidence. However, that is not clear from the wording of the section. I do not...

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

Ivana Bacik: I said the reason I opposed the section was that I was not clear about the purpose. The Minister clarified that and I will table an amendment on Report Stage. I am grateful to him. The Minister said that gardaí would have to put it to the acquitted person. I do not believe he is requiring that because clearly the gardaí may apply but they do not have to do so.

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

Ivana Bacik: There might well be a situation in which the Director of Public Prosecutions makes a section 8 application without a section 16 application having been made first. Section 16 is not a necessary prerequisite for section 8. I am trying to assist the Minister in clarifying that.

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

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 44: In page 24, subsection (1), line 19, before "arising" to insert the following: "which gives to a directed verdict or which prevented the jury from considering evidence which was properly admissible or a misdirection of law to the jury". This amendment proposes to insert new words into section 23(1) relating to with prejudice prosecution appeals. The amendment seeks...

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

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful that the Minister has indicated his acceptance of the principle of my amendment. I was concerned about the lack of specificity in section 23 as it stands and I welcome that he plans to insert further qualifications or restrictions. He was probably more critical than I of the current wording of the section. This kind of with-prejudice appeal represents a radical departure,...

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

Ivana Bacik: I am happy to support the amendment in principle. I accept that it is a significant departure but it causes great distress to victims, and particularly to their families, when the accused raises provocation as a defence and the family feels that the character of their deceased relative has been impugned without any possibility of a response. Many years ago I spoke about this to Advocates...

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

Ivana Bacik: In response to the Minister's point about disparity between defence and State, it goes without saying that the might of the State is weighed against the defence. That has always been recognised in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and in our Constitution and the due course of law guarantee. It is important to bear that in mind. This provision is not unduly onerous but...

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

Ivana Bacik: I am very conscious that there has been a long body of case law on the issue of presentation of evidence, and I declare an interest as I acted in one case that went to the High Court on this. I welcome the attempt to put certainty in the law, but this may be difficult to operate in practice. I wish to make suggestions to improve the procedure outlined by the Minister in the new section 35....

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

Ivana Bacik: I do not think the 23 days is stringent. The prosecution must do it at least 23 days before the trial, but at any point in the months preceding the trial. It is a tight onus on the defence or the defence solicitors who are increasingly being given these time limits for the disclosure of evidence. In that context we need to look at extending the period for the service of the defence notices.

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

Ivana Bacik: Certainly, but there is a balance and I do not think it is being struck here.

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?

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

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 37: In page 18, subsection (1), lines 8 to 11, to delete all words from and including "if" in line 8 down to and including "Court" in line 11. The amendment proposes to delete the condition for appealing from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court because the appeal conditions are discriminatory against the acquitted person, providing no right of appeal unless...