Dan Boyle (Green Party)

This Bill is a sincere attempt to manage the fine line that exists in terms of maintaining and improving public confidence in our judicial system while protecting the entitlement of individual citizens to have their rights properly assessed in any court case. The Minister was assisted in producing this Bill by the recommendations of the balance in criminal law review group. Other speakers referred to welcome provisions in regard to victim impact statements, namely, that no inference may be taken from a decision not to make such a statement, and the provision whereby children will be allowed to make such statements via video link. All Members will welcome these measures.

Where controversy arises it is on a point of academic discussion, that is, the exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy. Other speakers outlined those concerns and how we must get the balance right in enacting this legislation. Senator Mullen asked for a tight definition of "new and compelling evidence". Senator Bacik observed that where similar changes have been introduced in other jurisdictions, they have been used rarely. She argued that the legislation should reflect the imperative that such provisions be used only in exceptional circumstances. I agree that when it comes to trying persons for a crime of which they have previously been acquitted on the basis of new and compelling evidence, there must be some provision to ensure such powers are not only used rarely but also on only one occasion. There should be some control such that new and compelling evidence is not constantly made available on a regular basis. Such a scenario introduces a threat into our judicial system that we do not need and which would compromise the rights of individual citizens. Will the Minister clarify whether that type of definition can be introduced on Committee Stage or Report Stage to make the Bill stronger?

Process is clearly important in the context of our judicial system. However, where public confidence in that system has faltered, particularly in the case of serious crimes in recent years, it has been because there is a perception of an overemphasis on process rather than a focus on whether truth is established and guilt properly ascertained and acted upon. It is important that we ensure public confidence by introducing the necessary improvements in the system. The Minister, in introducing this Bill, is trying to achieve such an effect. We must move away from the perception, which may not solely be a perception, that in every circumstance, process will win out over truth in our judicial system. There is already, because of the distinction between criminal and civil law and the different standards of proof required, the possibility that a person may be declared not guilty under the criminal law but guilty of a similar offence under the civil law. This was the case in the verdict delivered in the High Court in Belfast this week in regard to the Omagh bombings in 1998. While the standard of proof and the ability to establish a conviction vary as between the civil and criminal codes, the fact that this distinction exists should make it easier for us to include these new qualifications in the law of double jeopardy.

I welcome the Bill and I ask the House to use the time afforded for deliberation on it on Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report Stage to bring about whatever possible further improvements might be made. We must enact legislation required to bring about the type of confidence for which many people are calling in respect of serious crime.