Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

Amendment No. 50 contains my substantive proposals for reform while amendment No. 1 is a consequential amendment. I will therefore focus on the later amendment No. 50.

Amendment No. 50 relates to the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 and consists of two parts. The first part contains the definition of "prosecutor" in section 4 of the 1967 Act. It proposes to amend that section by deleting the words "or on behalf or with the consent of," when defining the role of the Attorney General as prosecutor. Section 4(1)(a) defines prosecutor for the purposes of Part IA, that is, the procedures relating to indictable offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions is the prosecutor. Section 4(1)(b) defines prosecutor in relation to Part II of the 1967 Act, that is, where the accused pleads guilty in the District Court to an indictable offence and Part III which deals with remand. In these instances the prosecutor may be the Director of Public Prosecutions, a person acting at the suit of the DPP or a person authorised by law to prosecute an offence. However, section 4(2) defines prosecutor in relation to Parts IA, II and III as the Attorney General in cases where the institution or continuation of proceedings requires the Attorney General's consent.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed a concern that section 4(2) may be interpreted to mean that every reference to prosecutor in Parts IA and Parts II and III of the 1967 Act is to be taken as referring to the Attorney General in any case coming under those Parts, including cases where the Attorney General's role is confined to consenting to the institution and continuation of the prosecution rather than to conducting it. This could mean that if an accused is charged with an offence under legislation that stipulates that the consent of the Attorney General is required before a prosecution is instituted, then it is the Attorney General and not the Director of Public Prosecutions who must serve the book of evidence, consent to a return for trial and carry out all other prosecution functions assigned to the prosecutor under Part IA.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned only to ensure clarity as to its own functions, especially for the purposes of Part IA of the 1967 Act. The clarification now proposed does not alter the requirement for the Attorney General's consent to the institution or continuation of certain proceedings. The amendment will put beyond doubt that after the Attorney General has given his consent, in cases where consent is required by statute, it is for the DPP to operate thereafter as the prosecutor of the case.

The second part of this amendment relates to the time period for service of the book of evidence, more particularly the issue is about when the time period begins. Currently, section 4B(1) of the 1967 Act stipulates that it must be served within 42 days of the person's first appearance in the District Court. The amendment changes that period to it being 42 days from the date on which it is determined that the case is to be tried on indictment. As many Senators will be aware, a book of evidence is required only when a case is tried on indictment. Experience suggests that in a great many cases, the 42-day period, as it is currently applied, will have expired before the question of whether the case is to be tried on indictment or summarily will have been determined. This creates a significant burden on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and creates inefficiencies in the system. For example, in some cases, a book of evidence will not have been prepared as the DPP intends to proceed on a summary basis but the District Court may, as it is entitled, refuse jurisdiction and send the case forward for trial on indictment.

It would be much more efficient if the timeline for service of the book of evidence ran from the day on which it was determined that a book of evidence was actually required. While applications for extensions to the time period under section 4B(3) will continue to a factor in particular cases, this amendment should reduce the number of applications for those cases where it was initially unclear whether they would be sent forward for trial on indictment.

Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 50. It adds a definition of the Act of 1967 to section 2 of the Bill. It defines the reference to the Act of 1967 as referring to the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. I recommend these amendments to the House as they will significantly promote the more efficient use of resources.

I wish to take this opportunity to speak on the interpretation section to flag the Government's intention to bring forward amendments on Report Stage to the definition of "broadcast" in sections 2 and 4 to update the Bill to reflect the definition in the Broadcasting Act 2009 which has been enacted since the publication of this Bill. Section 2 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 provides for the following definition of broadcast:

"[B]roadcast" means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic communications network of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not[.]

The House will note the reference to wireless telegraphy, cable or the Internet, contained in the definition that currently appears in this Bill under consideration has been replaced by a reference to electronic communications network. I suggest this is a preferable way of proceeding because the Broadcasting Act is now enacted and our proposal for the definition of broadcast reflects what is already in the Broadcasting Act 2009.