Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on his initiative in introducing this bold and brave Bill. I acknowledge that the Bill is being initiated in this House to give the Upper House greater status and recognition, which it merits. As a spokesperson on justice in the House, I am pleased the Bill is initiated here. I would like to see more legislation initiated in the Seanad and teased out by Senators before it goes to the Lower House. I am not sure whether it will be recognised that this landmark legislation is ground-breaking. The Minister is making a brave and bold statement, particularly as one of the pillars of the criminal justice system, which has been in place for 250 years - namely, the rule on double jeopardy - is being amended, although not abolished. If one had suggested this to some criminal lawyers two decades ago they would have said it should not be touched. This is a brave and ground-breaking step.

I acknowledge the efforts by my colleague Senator Regan in the initiatives he has taken. He referred to the Bill tabled in the other House by Deputies Shatter and Flanagan. I considered that legislation and this Bill, and we must put on record that while there are similarities, the Bill being presented by the Minister today goes much further, which is to be welcomed.

When we consider the systems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK, we can see that we are catching up with initiatives they have taken. The legislation passed in New Zealand has broad similarities to the Bill presented by Deputies Shatter and Flanagan. It is important that we consider how things are done in other jurisdictions. When I was a law student we looked at the British Companies Act 1947 and compared it to the legislation introduced here in 1963. Our legislation was bolder and braver because we had learned in the intervening years of the mistakes in the British legislation and made changes accordingly.

It is a reflection on society that the Minister must introduce such strong measures to prevent gangland crime. This Bill sends the message to drug barons that they will no longer be able to hide behind the right to silence. It will send a shiver down the spines of those who think they can hide behind antiquated, outdated procedures. The gardaí and the courts need to be able to take stronger measures.

The Bill addresses victim impact statements, the quashing of acquittals and the sending of cases for retrial in limited circumstances. Along with the Minister, I acknowledge the great work of Professor Gerard Hogan in the report of the Criminal Law Review Group. I had firsthand experience of working with Professor Hogan on a number of committees and I have a great appreciation of his indepth knowledge of the criminal law and constitutional matters. He is the leading expert on such matters in the country.

Victim impact statements hit the headlines with the unfortunate case of a young person who died in east Cork. Two families were torn apart and this was the first time where the idea of such statements became news. I am glad there is now a statutory footing for such statements. Victim impact statements will be made only at the sentencing stage, after conviction when the jury has returned a verdict, and that is only right and proper because it would create problems if they were allowed in advance. The Bill allows the judge to take account of the impact on the victim when determining the level of sentence.

I also welcome the Minister allowing a broad definition of who can give a victim impact statement. It could be a child, spouse, partner or guardian ad litem of a person. It also covers vulnerable witnesses such as children, people with mental disorders or victims of rape or sexual assault, and allows for the statement to be made by television link. The Bill extends the possibility of making a statement to family members and facilitates vulnerable people. It meets the demands of victims' groups for a broader arrangement.

The most important element of the Bill is the altering of the concept of double jeopardy. Normally an acquittal marks the end of a criminal case but it is now proposed to change that in a limited way. An acquitted person is innocent in the eyes of the law. This change has been made successfully in Britain, New Zealand and in many states in Australia. An acquittal may be quashed in three circumstances; the Minister has been careful to ensure it is not a free for all because otherwise there would be all sorts of constitutional challenges.

The first circumstance is where new and compelling evidence emerges. This will apply to offences carrying a life sentence that are listed in the Schedule to the Bill. The second circumstance is where the acquittal resulted from a tainted trial where there was intimidation, perjury, bribery of witnesses or jurors. This can apply in any case tried on indictment. It is an important matter to mention because there have been incidents where jurors and witnesses were intimidated in gangland cases. This Bill will act as a shield to protect such people. The intimidation of jurors is serious. It has happened before so greater protection must be given to them. If there is an acquittal because a juror is interfered with, the verdict is tainted. There have been cases where, following an acquittal, a brave man has admitted the crime outside the courthouse. Until now we had no way to reverse that decision, there was no way back. This case allows an opportunity where a guilty person cannot use the double jeopardy rule.

There will also be a change to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring a with prejudice appeal against an acquittal. An appeal of this type will arise from an error on a point of law by the trial judge where that error resulted in an acquittal. It allows for the possibility of not only quashing the acquittal but ordering a retrial. This appeal option is available for any case tried on indictment. Such an appeal on a with prejudice basis is a new phenomenon because an appeal on a point of law could lead to a lengthy custodial sentence. It is a new departure that I welcome.

In these landmark changes to the legal justice system, the Minister has put in place several safeguards. A retrial must be ordered by a higher court - the Court of Criminal Appeal or, in a with prejudice case, the Supreme Court. The court will make an order if it is satisfied the application brought to it by the DPP meets an exacting standard. Special powers are also being given to the gardaí.

I commend the Minister for this ground breaking legislation. It has gone further than the Fine Gael Bill that was introduced in the other House and it brings us in the right direction. I hope it is passed swiftly. I welcome amendments from Members on all sides so the legislation can be fully teased out and I look forward to an indepth analysis on Committee Stage.