Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Senators. Senator Norris will note that I value very much the input into legislation from the Seanad and I welcome the expertise brought to this Bill, not only from the political parties but also from the Independents, and not only in this area but in other areas as well.

The amendment was prompted largely by the DPP's office on the basis that until 1999 there were no time limits within which it was required to serve a book of evidence. This changed following the Criminal Justice Act 1999 which included a statutory requirement for a time limit. District Court rules dating from 1967 had certain requirements but these were only rules and they were replaced in 1997 by an updated District Court rule in this respect. In 1999 a statutory requirement was introduced. The DPP's office made a very strong case to the effect that because of the requirement for a book of evidence on indictment it was only logical that only when a decision is made to send forward a defendant on indictment should the time limit kick in, rather than when a defendant first appears in the District Court. To a certain extent the DPP's office could be up against a time line, especially if adjournments took place at the initial stage before a decision had been made on whether it was a minor offence.

This matter was examined by a working group on the jurisdiction of the courts, chaired by Mr. Justice Fennelly. It reported in 2003 and examined this issue. The working group proposed a 90 day time limit from the first appearance in court. We believe the proposal of a 42 day limit following the decision to send forward a defendant is neater because the requirement for a book of evidence only kicks in once the court has decided to try the offence on indictment. We believe it creates a more certain period and lessens the burden on the DPP's office on the preparation of evidence. Sometimes it might prepare a book of evidence when it is not required.