Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I note that amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 50 which is clearly the substantive amendment. I am concerned about the practical impact of this proposed amendment and I wish to reserve my position on it for Report Stage. I ask for the opportunity to take soundings on it among other practitioners. I speak as someone who is a practising barrister and has worked a good deal in the District Court, albeit I do not tend to practise there any more and have not done so for some years. However, I am conscious that the Minister's stated rationale for introducing this amendment is to reduce the burden on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and to make the running of the system more efficient. If I am correct, the effect of the amendment would be quite serious on the defence in terms of prolonging quite significantly the period of time before the book of evidence would be served upon them. Case law from the European Court of Human Rights and our own jurisprudence suggests there should be a presumption in favour of more information and greater disclosure to the defence in advance. This concentrates the mind of all concerned in any criminal case and it is the way the law has been going. I do not see it as a positive development that the prosecution would be given longer to prepare the book of evidence. The Minister stated that often the 42 day period is not observed and I am aware of this. However, it keeps the pressure on the DPP's office and it gives district judges a modicum of control over the process. I am concerned this amendment would adversely affect the rights of the accused and give the district judge less control over the time period within which the prosecution must produce the book of evidence. A better approach would be to keep the current provision and allow the flexibility the district judges use in practice in terms of prolonging the period within which the book of evidence may be served.

I reserve the right to speak further and to call for a division against this measure on Report Stage. It is unfortunate such a significant provision was introduced by way of amendment and that we did not have the opportunity to comment on it on Second Stage. I made a very full speech on this Bill on Second Stage in June, as Members will be aware, and I examined the Bill in great detail at that point. However, this new amendment to the Act of 1967 makes a significant change to District Court practice and I alert other colleagues to it.