Seanad debates

Wednesday, 10 December 2008

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

 

6:00 pm

Photo of Liam TwomeyLiam Twomey (Fine Gael)

As someone with no legal training, I will have to stick with the plain English school of thought. I was fascinated by the arguments made by Senators who have expertise in this area. The problem remains, however, that people are not satisfied the courts are acting properly. I would have liked solutions from the Minister but he seems to prefer doing nothing until the Kenny judgment is tested in the Supreme Court. If a constitutional issue arises, we will already be holding one referendum at some stage in 2009 and could hold a second referendum on the same day.

When members of the medical profession are presented with a problem, we do not go into a room to argue about it or say we have an idea what could happen but the patient will die. We try to get to the nub of the problem. I do not see that attitude from the Government in terms of presenting legislation to this House. In recent years, a number of changes have been made in the area of criminal law. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, was constantly bringing legislation before the Dáil. It was almost impossible to keep up with him because he rammed Bills through at an unbelievable rate. Has the Minister plans to bring legislation before the Seanad to address some of the problems he identified earlier? Can we amend legislation or is a referendum necessary? It is important we get this right.

We could discuss these matters for hours on end but our voters are being driven crazy by the low level harassment they are experiencing in their communities. People are creating trouble in housing estates throughout the country. I have experienced incidents in which people have driven up to my house only to turn around as soon as they saw me. Organised crime has gone completely out of control over the past decade. All the people want are solutions to their concerns. They do not want us to waffle about judgments and constitutional issues. That should be the basis of our discussion.

Does the Minister intend to introduce legislation in this area? He identified the mistakes but has he plans to address them? Is he prepared to act on constitutional issues? The law reform group which considered this issue has not stated that matters should be left as they are. It acknowledged that something can be done. I would like to learn whether a solution is possible because this debate seems to concern the process rather than the facts. Court cases often contain a certain element of pantomime and grandstanding. Perhaps the process is emphasised because the facts are not crystal clear. Spurious arguments can be made to sow doubt and win cases.

This legislation was introduced in the spirit of protecting citizens. Ordinary citizens and victims are not getting a fair deal in our courts at present and the criminals are making a mockery of the justice system. It is believed that those who have no interest in society are able to manipulate the law to their own ends. We should not be complacent when we hear people speak of vigilantism or taking the law into their own hands because I can see their frustration.

We should decide whether changes can be made to legislation to address these problems and weigh up the pros and cons of making constitutional changes. We do not need another review group. I ask the Minister of State to indicate whether he is prepared to act.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.