Dominic Hannigan (Labour)

Before he leaves, I wish to extend to Senator Boyle my compliments on his recent performance.

I welcome the Minister and also the debate on the Bill. I wish to focus largely on the issue of victim impact statements but I will also comment on the matter of double jeopardy.

Alleviating some small degree of the pain and suffering endured by the victims of crime is a problem that has asserted itself in a number of difficult and high-profile cases in recent years. The Holohan case in January 2006 and, more recently, the Siobhan Kearney murder trial raise difficult moral, ethical and judicial questions. In the storm of media coverage and public opinion which typically accompanies such cases, it can often be difficult to engage in a measured debate. This is understandable because the victims of crime, particularly those crimes which offend people's sense of decency and regard for human life, deserve sympathy and resolve of and support from their communities, broader society and legislators. It can be difficult to resist calls for immediate and wide-ranging action at such times. In that context, I welcome the Minister's reasoned response, by means of the provisions in the Bill, to some of the concerns that have been expressed.

The usefulness of victim impact statements has been debated in numerous jurisdictions across Europe and in Australia and North America. Many see such statements as necessary and as an empowering outlet for victims who have been utterly disempowered by the powers against them or their family members. Those who disagree with victim impact statements frequently argue they do not sit easily with the dispassionate and unsentimental nature of the criminal justice system. I can appreciate both points of view. While I do not wish to further disempower the victims of crime in any way, a number of recent high-profile cases remind us that victim impact statements can occasionally serve the interests of no one but those in the tabloid press.

Nevertheless, I am of the view that the relevant evidence and international opinion and best practice justify the enshrinement of victim impact statements into Irish law. In a survey conducted in Canada, over 1,300 victims of crime were asked for their opinion on such statements and to rate the importance of various legal rights. Four in every five of those respondents rated their ability to deliver a victim impact statement as very important to them.

It is frequently argued that the criminal justice system sometimes appears to expend all of its energy on the perpetrators of crimes while totally ignoring their victims. The introduction of measures to protect a victim's right to make a statement is a welcome step towards rebalancing the burden of fear and hardship from the victim to the perpetrator. However, I concur with the assertion of the Irish Council of Civil Liberties, ICCL, that various small measures should be applied to ensure the passage of the victims through the criminal justice system is made somewhat easier and less traumatic. No victim should be made to feel further and undue intimidation or harassment during court proceedings. As the ICCL points out, the privacy of the victim is also paramount. A victim will have already suffered an attack on his or her dignity and rights and it is important the criminal justice system makes every responsible effort to reinforce the existence of those rights while the victim is moving through the system.

On the important point of a victim's privacy, there are a number of measures in the Bill which I welcome and support. The fact the Bill will allow minors and vulnerable individuals, including those with mental health difficulties, to submit testimony through trusted intermediaries or via video link is a positive and progressive step that will ease the emotional burden placed on these individuals. On a practical note, will the Minister indicate the envisaged timescale regarding the introduction of a system of this sort?

As attested to by the ICCL, it is the little things that are absent from the Bill. Those little things are largely environmental in nature and have the ability to radically alter victims' perceptions of the criminal justice system and the court experience. It is simply a no-brainer that victims and their families should be guaranteed the right to enter and exit a court in privacy. Similarly, waiting facilities for victims and their families should be provided separately and consistently. These are hardly mountains to climb but they are issues that continually arise for victims. In such circumstances, we must ensure they are dealt with in the legislation.

I support the establishment of the victims of crime office in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I do not believe in playing politics with people's human rights or their right to seek redress. The Minister's commitment to victims' rights seems entirely genuine and he is acting in accordance with previous promises from and pronouncements by his Department. In light of the recent destruction of an equality and rights infrastructure which took almost two decades to build, it is comforting to know that somewhere deep in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform there lurks some sort of commitment to people's human rights.

With regard to the proposals on amending legislation on double jeopardy, I agree with the comments of Senator Mullen. We must be clear in respect of what we mean by the term "new and compelling evidence". The law, as it currently exists, can only be changed with caution. I expect, therefore, that my party will table some amendments in respect of this matter on Committee Stage.

I have remained positive during my contribution and I do not wish to end on a negative note. In those circumstances, I reaffirm my support for the advances the legislation will afford to victims.