Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

This amendment was tabled in the Dáil and seeks to make provision for identification parades to be conducted through one-way mirrors. The idea is that the accused person need not be necessarily physically in a position to see the identifying person or that the old method — which happily is now gone — in which, for example, the victim of a rape was obliged to put his or her hand on the shoulder of the assailant and state this was the person, should not be visited upon someone who has already undergone one trauma and does not need to have it compounded by another traumatic experience.

I will repeat my comments in the other House, namely, it is not necessary to have a statutory basis for a one-way mirror system of identification. There is a great deal to be said in favour of having one-way mirror systems and as I noted in the other House one could have a dedicated identity parade facility in large population centres. However, it does not always work out that identity parades can be held in centres of major population in which there would be legitimate cause for setting out a room in a special manner to facilitate such a system of identification. I made the point in the Dáil that one could bring portable screens to a location in order that one is not obliged to bring people to a room or whatever. Effectively, one could bring the facility to a place where one proposed to hold an identification parade.

However, I also pointed out in the other House that there are some issues in this regard. If a person is accused of a serious crime and an identification parade is in contemplation, he or she is entitled to be sure the parade is fair. Members of the other House had some fun in this regard. When Deputy Howlin noted he was once on an identity parade, other Members expressed the hope that the other people involved were not all 6 ft. 6 in. The composition of the identity parade should be fair and photographed or whatever in order that people can see it was reasonably fair, that people's appearances were approximately similar and not radically different or that only one person was produced who corresponded with the complaint made by the identifying witness.

Moreover, as regards fairness, there must be some way of verifying that the identity parade was fair. For instance, if a witness came into a cubicle and behind a one-way mirror identified or somehow indicated that it was parade member No. 4, the question arises as to whether he or she was being prompted and what could he or she see. In addition, the question arises as to whether an accused person, who did not have a lawyer or witness behind the screen who was in a position to see what was going on, would simply accept a voice coming through a microphone stating it was parade member No. 4 without knowing what guidance was being given or what prejudicing of the identification had taken place. There is a need for one-way mirrors and enhanced guidelines for identification parades to protect the witnesses of traumatic, violent and sexual crimes from unnecessary trauma in the identification process, but a statutory basis is not needed. Currently, ministerial regulations do not need to be made as it is a matter for judges to decide. Guidelines can be handed down within the Garda Síochána as part of a manual for the determination of these issues and those guidelines can be changed from time to time without Oireachtas involvement.

These are the arguments I advanced in the Dáil against accepting the amendment while emphasising that one-way screens would greatly assist the sense of well-being and dignity of especially vulnerable witnesses, such as victims of sexual crime, and enhance their capacity to make reflective identifications of persons who may have committed crimes against them. Walking into a room where the person who may have raped one is present and watching is an unnecessarily brutal encounter because there is no privacy or time to consider each person carefully. I believe in the one-way mirror system, but it does not need a statutory basis. Rather we need to get on with the changes.