Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I thank the Minister for his full response. I am conscious Mr. Justice Fennelly's report maintained the principle that the time should run from the first appearance, albeit extending the time somewhat to reflect the greater reality. However, the principle espoused by the working group was important. My concern is that principle would be eroded by the proposed amendment and it would adversely impact on the accused. I am conscious that time limits were introduced in 1999 through statute. However, to give the full picture, the reason they were introduced is that in the same Act powers to detain an accused or to adjourn an accused on remand in custody for longer periods were increased. When I began practising in the District Court there were more rigid time rules for the period during which an accused could be detained in custody between adjournment dates to the court. As I recall, the 1999 changes to insert time limits served as a balance to the increased time an accused was likely to spend in custody between court appearances.

How will the district judge make the determination that the facts do not constitute a minor offence if such a determination is to be made before any book of evidence is served? I reserve my position on this matter. Like Senator Regan, I welcomed many aspects of this Bill on Second Stage, especially Part 2 which deals with the impact of crimes on the victim and I wish to put that on the record again. I support many of the principles in the Bill but I am concerned this late amendment was inserted and that it makes a substantial change to criminal procedure in the District Court. It is an area of practice often overlooked but it is where the majority of criminal case are dealt with. We must be very careful about making such sweeping changes without being conscious of their full impact. While I will not seek a division on this point now, the Minister should ask again, albeit perhaps not just the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. For example, the Criminal Bar Association is made up of people who both defend and prosecute. I ask that the views of this organisation or those of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties also be sought in this regard. Although I have not had time to do this, I certainly intend to do so before Report Stage to ascertain what impact they consider this amendment is likely to have in practice on accused persons before the District Court. I am concerned there may be unforeseen practical consequences to this measure. Changing the point at which the time runs is quite significant. As I understand it, Mr. Justice Fennelly's report did not propose that major change; it simply extended the time.