Results 10,701-10,720 of 11,695 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

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...

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...