Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I have listened carefully to what my colleagues Senators Alex White, Bacik and Regan said. I also heard the Minister speaking on this very point in section 7. Like many others, there is a certain degree of mixed feelings among all of us on this matter. We all share the concern that something needs to be done in the fairly unique circumstances in which we find ourselves. As I said on the Order of Business earlier, however, it is because this is so important that it is so regrettable the Bill is being rushed.

The Minister is right to clarify that there may have been people who mistakenly understood this section to provide that what would be admissible was the opinion of a member of the Garda Síochána as to whether a person was a member of a certain criminal organisation. We are all clear that is not what is being proposed. It is simply and solely about the word of a Garda being taken as evidence of the existence of a particular criminal organisation. It is significant that many people who operate in the legal world and are dealing with victims as well as accused parties have such concerns about this legislation.

I am indebted to one barrister, Ms Catherine McGillicuddy, with whom I have been in correspondence. She wrote:

Many people will be relieved to hear that the Government is doing something to tackle gangland crime. However, it is important to ask if these new measures are the right solution for the problems that gangland crime presents. New laws do not necessarily mean better laws. New laws must fit into the broader legal system; that is to say they must be constitutional. They should also address existing concerns and produce concrete results.

Does this legislation make the achievement of a successful criminal prosecution more likely? Or is it something that has the appearance of making a successful prosecution more likely? The danger is that the untested opinion, even of a member of the Garda Síochána, could form part of a patchwork of deception in which an innocent person could potentially be successfully prosecuted. This is what is at stake. As it has evolved, our entire legal system is careful about making sure that innocent people do not go to jail. In order to do that, it puts a very high onus on the prosecution. It requires that a prosecution must reach a very high threshold in proving the case. I heard the Minister refer earlier to things being the opinion of the Garda Síochána that X should be done. We discussed this last week in the context of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I am uncomfortable about that type of situation where we are being told that it is the opinion of the Garda Síochána that this should be done and that it is the only thing that can be done. However, we are not actually having the discussion behind the presentation of the proposed legislative change. For all these reasons, I join in the concern expressed by Senators Bacik and White. However, with regard to the requirement that the garda giving a statement on the existence of a particular criminal organisation be not below a certain rank, I do not see how that brings about a situation in which the person with the closest knowledge of gangland activity would not be in a position to assist the courts. If there is a serious issue such as the existence of a criminal organisation one would expect that a senior member of the Garda would be in a position to give the requisite testimony. Therefore, to require that the person be not below a certain rank is a reasonable amendment to what is, to say the least, a rather adventurous change in the law proposed by the Minister.