Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Members have canvassed an interesting point in regard to these amendments. This section follows the Canadian model and provides that a judge can take into account where inconsistent statements are subsequently withdrawn. It is important that there should not be impediments in this regard.

I can see, as Senator Tuffy said, that solicitors will make an argument when the witness is hostile regarding the statement he has made and anything that might compromise it. There are practicalities involved also and it is not always easy to get a peace commissioner to attend when a witness is making a statement. Generally they are made in Garda stations. We should try to protect section 16 because it is important and may prove effective in tackling organised crime where intimidation of witnesses can occur.

If a garda other than the garda in charge of the case against the defendant took the witness statement in the station it could be argued there is not the same conflict of interest, in inverted commas. I have difficulty with this idea of a conflict of interest. The Garda exists to represent the State and society generally. It is the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that brings the case against the defendant with the garda, often, as a witness. Perhaps there should be a distinction made between the garda in charge of the case against the defendant and other gardaí in the station. I would hate to think that section 16 could be undermined by interpretations made subsequent to the passing of the Bill.