David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the spirit of these amendments because Senator Regan is attempting to secure the rights of victims. There is a strong public feeling that victims are not treated with the degree of sympathy they could be and that they do not have access to the redress they ought to have. There is a feeling that the balance may be slightly skewed. I am not sure whether that is true but certainly one must have compassion towards people who are clearly the victims of crime, and sometimes the victims of very brutal crimes. This morning, I heard the Minister on the radio discussing the appalling bank robbery where people were held. The victims included small and vulnerable children who may be traumatised for a very long time. There is certainly a very considerable public appetite for something to be done in the interests of victims.

Another point is that, without wishing to undermine the status of citizens in this regard, they are alleged victims until the crime has been adjudicated upon. In almost all cases they will turn out to be victims and as citizens they should be treated appropriately anyway. I remember a case from recent years where a man was convicted on the evidence of a young woman. It turned out that the background was a dispute between two families about land. She put her oar in to victimise the person accused of rape. He was convicted and a number of years later she surfaced from abroad and acknowledged that it was a tissue of lies. She was and should have been seen as an alleged victim up to the point where the man was convicted. In this case, the man was convicted incorrectly. I am not impugning the status of all victims. I am stating that their victimhood is only confirmed by the passing of sentence by the court. Until that point they are assumed or alleged victims.

The same is true of defendants. They are accused until they are convicted. Because there is a small number of cases in which the accusation will prove to be unfounded or malicious, it seems that the first part of the section proposed in Amendment No. 2 should apply with equal force to the accused. I mean those paragraphs which state:

4.—(1) Any person who deals with a victim (for example, a member of the judiciary, lawyer, member of court staff, member of an Garda Síochána or other official) shall—

(a) treat the victim with courtesy and compassion, and

(b) respect the victim's dignity and privacy, save that nothing contained herein shall in any way infringe the constitutional rights of an alleged offender or of an offender[.]

Those essential courtesies and compassion of respect for dignity and privacy should also extend to those accused, especially because they have not been convicted.

Although I do not have any qualification whatever in law I remember attending the District Court on a number of occasions in the remote past when judges felt free to engage — and I hope they no longer do — in mocking and taunting people accused of specific crimes. I was in court when reference was made to their sexual organs, sexual propensities and sexual practices to howls of amusement from the body of the court. That is not appropriate and I would like to think that every citizen should be treated with the minimum of courtesy and compassion, particularly until he or she is convicted. I do not see why courtesy and compassion should cease in an allegedly Christian state even when a person is convicted.

Amendment No. 2 contains a weakening and classic let-out which is inevitable in the current circumstances in the phrase, "insofar as resources are available". That would be very well used to get out of any obligation to provide assistance to victims through psychological and social care. They would be told that the resources are not available and they cannot have them.

Amendment No. 7 is interesting and important because people who are alleged or assumed victims of crime are very anxious to know the process of the investigation and to know that the investigation is continuing. In the previous session, Senator Hannigan raised on the Adjournment and brought to the attention of the Minister a case in which a victim could get no information and the matter was endlessly delayed to the point where a prosecution became almost unsustainable. This was brought to the attention of the court. The name of the investigating garda and a telephone access number are completely reasonable requests to be included in the amendment.

With regard to the outline of the investigation and prosecution process, Senator Regan has included some learned comments and my concern is that information might be divulged whose divulgence is dangerous to the investigation. One cannot rely entirely on discretion. If one gives out sensitive information to victims it may be that their immediate instinct is to run next door and tell a neighbour and disclose it all. It may also be that an investigation is following certain angles that are not only delicate but also dead ends, and endless gossip and malicious talk might be fostered by this. Therefore, I am concerned about access to this type of information.

It is essential to give information on whether an accused is granted bail because experience shows us that many criminals re-offend immediately on release, especially in larceny. Frequently they re-offend on bail. I am on the central area joint policing committee and at our most recent session approximately one month ago, the very efficient police officers presented us with statistics on crime which they then took back because they were confidential. I do not think I am breaking confidentiality when I state that in the central area of Dublin there was a huge spike in certain types of crime, particularly burglaries and robberies of or from cars. The superintendent or inspector — I am not sure which — present at the meeting explained this as being directly related to releases from Mountjoy, that the Garda knew immediately a particular person was back in operation and that they just had to look for him. This is very practical information.

After I make my final point I will read the Minister's reply if he deigns to deal with the points I have raised because I must attend another meeting. If it is not buried somewhere I have not noticed, Senator Regan should include in the list the date of release. This is very important for victims and relatives who had a close family member murdered. I know of a number of instances reported in the public media where relatives were not told an offender was released. I know we are not supposed to put names on the record so I will not do so but I am sure the Minister will know the case to which I refer where a man convicted of manslaughter was released and murdered somebody else. A shock is given to relatives when they are not told a release is coming up. They can prepare themselves emotionally if they are made aware of it. Senator Regan may have included this and I might have missed it.