Seanad debates

Wednesday, 10 December 2008

Criminal Law (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill 2008: Second Stage

 

5:00 pm

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I compliment Senator Regan on the personal effort he has put into this Bill. The Minister was complimentary in acknowledging the thrust of what the Senator is endeavouring to achieve through the Bill and I am glad he will now have a close look at the issue to see what can be achieved. I accept the point made by the Minister and by the committee chaired by Dr. Gerard Hogan who is probably the main constitutional lawyer in the country. It appears that among the legal eagles there is a doubt whether legislation per se can overturn or uproot a constitutional rule of evidence that has evolved since approximately 1965.

I commend Members of the Opposition, such as Senator Regan, who introduce Bills in the House. Back in 1996 when the current Ceann Comhairle, Deputy John O'Donoghue, was in Opposition, he produced a Bill that was not accepted by the Minister of the time, Nora Owen. However, within 12 months or less, the coalition Government revisited the issue and the upshot was the creation of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Deputy O'Donoghue would probably claim his prints are on that particular legislation. I have no doubt, therefore, that when this issue is revisited, that Senator Regan will be able to claim he, by bringing this Bill before the House, introduced a springboard or catalyst to move the issue forward. This must be acknowledged and appreciated.

However, if one considers this rule's history, and I am inclined to bow to the strong knowledge evinced in this regard by my colleague, Senator Bacik, it is certain that legislation introduced by the Oireachtas on a rule that has evolved through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court cannot of itself reverse the Supreme Court's thinking. As the Minister noted, my fear is that were such a Bill simply passed in the Oireachtas, the constitutionality of which inevitably would be tested in the courts, it might simply be thrown back in Members' faces, which would put back by another decade the work Senator Regan and others are trying to do.

Nevertheless, I am greatly interested in the remarks of the High Court judge last year in a case that may end up in the Supreme Court. Senator Bacik mentioned its name which now evades me.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.