Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

What the Chair has said will not stop me from commenting on the Judiciary in general. I accept that with regard to individual cases, we must not get involved. However, there are questions to be asked and we are elected to voice the concerns of the public and to improve the administrative framework relating to our laws. The matter of victim impact statements arose from the Hogan review group. One of the previous Bills introduced measures concerning the right to silence, again arising from the Hogan review group, and the fact that inferences can be taken where people exercise the right to silence when questioned about specific crimes. I welcomed it at the time. This is the direction in which we should be going. There is a legal right, not subject to the discretion of the judge, to make victim impact statements, which is welcome. I welcome the fact that vulnerable witnesses, including children, can give evidence through audiovisual links. This is a step in the right direction. In cases of rape and sexual offences, it is difficult for those who are under age to recount the criminal acts and anything we can do to alleviate their trauma is welcome.

The Minister has included provision in the Bill that no inference can be taken from the failure of a victim to exercise the right to a victim impact statement. It is essential that the absence of a victim impact statement cannot give rise to any inference. This is extended to other family members.

The victim impact statement is taken into account by the judge before passing sentence. It appears to be an influencing factor in the sentence. Some people can be much more articulate in the manner in which they display and illustrate the impact of the crime on them and their families. It is important that impact statements that do not have as great an impact as others do not dilute the sentencing.

I welcome the amendments changing double jeopardy. I will address some reservations. Regarding acquittals, when new evidence comes to light subsequently, through advances in technology and science, the Garda Síochána has greater technical capacity to mount a successful prosecution than heretofore. Where such evidence comes to light in the case of serious crime, such as those carrying a life sentence, this is appropriate. I have some reservation that crimes that do not carry a life sentence but which may be serious crimes, with tremendous impact on victims, are excluded from this. I refer to serious sexual offences, which may carry long sentences but not life sentences. It is a pity they cannot be included. This is a step in the direction and I hope it will advance in time.

Where it subsequently comes to light that someone has committed perjury or where witnesses were intimidated or bribed, there can be an application for a retrial. The Minister has included precautionary measures with regard to this function. The DPP is now empowered to bring a with prejudice appeal against an acquittal where an error on a point of law has been made by the trial judge where that error has resulted in an acquittal. That is essential.

Why do we have laws? We have laws to protect society and to ensure people in society conform to a required norm. Where that is breached and it has an impact on others, people must be held to account for such actions. At its simplest, those who are guilty must be brought to trial and where they have escaped in the first instance through error, that can be corrected.

The Minster has pointed out that there cannot be retrospective implementation of these measures for constitutional reasons. We have had serious crimes in the past and where people have not been brought to justice and where evidence is available that would have a high probability of success, we should not be beyond proposing constitutional amendments to allow this. Where people committed crimes, were brought to trial and were acquitted, they should not necessarily escape the hand of the law.