Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, to delete lines 33 to 36.

The wording in lines 33 to 36 would reverse a Supreme Court decision and would undermine normal court procedures in an undesirable way. We wish to uphold the existing Supreme Court decision and normal court procedures. It is important that due process is allowed so that the Act can stand up legally and under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Rather than being brought by way of an originating notice of motion, which is a very basic document, applications should be brought by the Criminal Assets Bureau in the ordinary way by normal detailed pleadings where the case would be set out in some detail with the right to raise particulars and file a defence. The Supreme Court recently upheld the application of normal procedures in the case of McK. v. F. This provision in the Bill seeks to reverse that Supreme Court decision. We accept the Supreme Court decision and our amendment seeks to retain it. Clearly if the procedures which normally apply were upheld by the Supreme Court, the case for changing them just to suit the Criminal Assets Bureau is weak. Leaving the Bill as is will open the way for further legal challenges possibly leading to another very high profile defeat for the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The Minister has previously said the amendments benefited defendants and that the matter could be remitted for a plenary hearing. We believe a defendant will be able to apply for the filing of affidavits if our amendment accepted.