Results 10,501-10,520 of 11,489 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

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...

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

Ivana Bacik: I acknowledge the existing provisions are discriminatory but this is a new provision relating to appeals specifically against a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 10, that is, where the court grants a retrial order quashing a person's acquittal under section 8 or section 9. We are, therefore, dealing with a new area of law because until now there was no provision for the...

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

Ivana Bacik: I will press an amendment on this matter on Report Stage. I am grateful to Senator Regan for his words of support. The debate was adjourned on this amendment as the Senator was indicating the reasons he agreed with me on it. I hope the Minister will consider changing the wording of the section in the way I propose in the amendment but, if not, that he delete the words "the Attorney General...

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

Ivana Bacik: I apologise; the Minister did respond. There was then another round of discussion.

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

Ivana Bacik: I do not want to labour the point but my position changed slightly as I was replying to the Minister's first response to the amendment. I indicated that I would change the wording of the amendment and will do so before Report Stage. Rather than deleting all of the words from and including "if", I will propose the deletion of the words "the Attorney General or the Director". I accept what...

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

Ivana Bacik: I am obliged. I withdraw the amendment on this Stage in the light of the Minister's comments.

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

Ivana Bacik: I spoke about this section already while discussing section 8. I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks on a person in respect of whom an application for a retrial order is being made under section 8. Presumably, this applies also to a person in respect of whom a section 9 application is being made. It is the understanding of both the Minister and I that such a person would be at...

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.