Seanad debates

Wednesday, 10 December 2008

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

 

6:00 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Labour)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I commend the Fine Gael Senators on introducing this Bill to the House. It shows their concern for the criminal justice system and their knowledge that it is facing incredible pressures at every level. The Labour Party supports their well-intentioned motives which are firmly directed at improving the lot of the innocent in society and the victims of crime. While I wish to address specific aspects of the Bill in the broader context of crime and safety in our communities, I wish to discuss the Bill's contents first.

Elements of this Bill are indisputable. For example, it is indisputable that Members' responsibility as legislators centres firmly on the victims of crime and not the criminal. This Bill rightly addresses the potential for a public crisis of confidence in our judicial system should criminals and those who prey on innocent members of society continue to exploit the system through technicalities and bureaucratic red tape. There is much Members can debate in this Bill. For instance, while the Labour Party Members commend the well-intentioned motives of the Bill, they suggest there may be other more appropriate ways that could be used to ameliorate the current position.

Undoubtedly, the exclusionary rule can hurt victims, marginalise the innocent and embolden criminals. Undoubtedly, it is undesirable that Irish law is out of step with so many other countries. It is at the root of this discord that I find cause to have concern for the direction in which this Bill would take us. The exclusionary rule came about from a judicial ruling which has since caused or contributed to the collapse of numerous trials that might otherwise have been able to continue, some of which have been mentioned by other Members during the debate. However, there is a danger that this Bill simply will swap one form of judicial activism for another by bestowing discretionary powers on a judge who may or may not deem evidence admissible in court.

The Bill sets out a number of criteria for the examination of evidence that previously might have fallen under the exclusionary rule. These include whether the obtaining of the evidence was a mere mistake as opposed to a deliberate violation of rights; whether the breach was serious or merely technical in nature; the seriousness of the alleged crime committed; and the effect on the administration of justice of including or excluding the evidence. While there are other criteria, those four examples provide a clear picture of the kind of territory to which this Bill would take us. While it is inexcusable that important trials are being hamstrung and are in danger of collapse by virtue of the exclusionary rule, the criteria for the inclusion of evidence, as outlined in this Bill, are not the answer.

Although I agree that this aspect of the criminal law mechanism requires reform, outsourcing discretionary powers of interpretation, literally on a case by case basis, is not an appropriate response. If enacted, such a Bill doubtless would present a brand new set of challenges and delays. Who is to say these criteria for inclusion could not be challenged, thereby setting back countless trials and leaving us with an equally flawed variation of the same system? If the criteria cannot be challenged, should Members not be at least slightly uncomfortable with the provision of such broad discretionary powers?

It is questionable whether a top-down approach as outlined in this Bill will redress the fundamental problem of crime in our society. While we must address imbalance in the judicial scales in our courts, first it is essential to get the balance right on the streets. The Bill implies the Garda is under pressure, the victim of too much bureaucracy, and struggles to do its job, and I absolutely agree. While judicial reform is vital, the way to redress the broader issues of making our country safer is not by tinkering at the top but by investing on the ground. Resources must be refocused at street level. In recent weeks Members have seen the spectacle of members of the Garda assaulted and badly beaten on the streets of towns such as Clonmel as well as the capital city. How can one expect optimal performance from those on the ground while the Government resolutely fails to provide the necessary investment in front-line police services?

At local level, the Garda must be supported and facilitated in its efforts to reassert its affinity and connection with regional communities. However, any local newspaper from anywhere will contain stories of petty crime, vandalism, violence and intimidation. These are not the horrific stories that are published in the Sunday newspapers or that are reported on RTE's "Six One News". However, they occur in every town and village and such incidents cause enormous concern and unease among local residents.

Rectifying the absence of sufficient numbers of gardaí surely is a first step towards addressing such issues and the provision of proper facilities for gardaí within their local community also is vital. That is why previous commitments on Garda stations need to be honoured. For instance, the failure of the Minister to provide new accommodation in places like Laytown, where premises have been promised on numerous occasions in the past, will not help policing in that area. Neither will the policy of opening Garda stations for only short periods during the day, particularly in commuter towns such as Dunboyne, from where people work in the capital for most of the day and, as a result, rarely get the chance to visit the Garda station. We need to start from the bottom up, rather than from the top down.

The Bill before the House rightly points out that Ireland is out of step with other countries on the issue of admissible evidence. However, Ireland is also at odds with international best practice in other areas where my party thinks reform is needed sooner, such as specialist drugs courts to tackle the resurgent illegal drug crisis and legislation on joy-riding which affects many communities, not only across Dublin but across other cities and towns also. We need such legislation sooner than perhaps legislation such as that outlined in this Bill.

If we invest in the front line, we will rebalance the burden of fear from the innocent law-abiding member of society to the drug-pusher, the joy-rider, the gang and the murderer. We must push forward a rational and coherent system of justice and policing in order that those who display a disregard for the innocent in society can be dealt with quickly, efficiently and to the full extent of the law.

I commend Fine Gael's commitment to solution-based politics. Fianna Fáil promised us zero tolerance, but what we got was zero action and zero competence. It is incumbent on us all to work together to put forward a coherent and strategic set of proposals, fit for purpose and fit for a modern Ireland. We welcome the opportunity today to have this debate, although we regret we cannot support the Bill.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.