Ivana Bacik (Independent)

The Minister put a word in my mouth by suggesting I described Garda practice as haphazard. As I stated, Garda practice in dealing with victims of crime has greatly improved and victim satisfaction with the pre-trial and investigation process is greatly enhanced by the goodwill shown by many gardaí in providing information and acting as an informal liaison officer through, for example, giving personal telephone numbers and so on. I am conscious that all these practices take place, that training is provided in Templemore and that a victim liaison office has been established. I did not imply that Garda practice was haphazard but suggested it was not as structured as it could be. For example, a specialist unit is still not available in some areas where, fortunately, certain crimes may be so rare that the only garda on duty is not familiar with the complaint with which he or she is confronted.

Criminal practitioners are aware of the significance of the initial statement a complainant makes to the Garda on first arrival at the Garda station, perhaps in distress or late at night. This statement is the hook on which a trial may ultimately fall if there are difficulties with it. It is vital, therefore, that gardaí who take statements are trained in dealing with victims. Perhaps this argument goes a little beyond the scope of the amendment but it is important that victims are informed of all their rights at an early stage.

As I stated, I did not mean to suggest Garda practice is haphazard. I welcome improvements in this area. We are all conscious that, in general, the treatment of prosecution witnesses has improved significantly during the years. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has made a major commitment to change. The Minister will remember a time when prosecution counsel were more or less told they could not even speak to victims or prosecution witnesses for fear of being accused of coaching them. Matters have improved greatly in this respect.

Senator Regan addressed the Minister's point concerning the potential abuse of legislation and its potential to bring down a trial. I do not see how these amendments could give rise to such a scenario. The Minister's point is, however, similar to one I made on amendment No. 50 regarding the need to be mindful of unforeseen consequences when legislating to make significant changes to the criminal justice system. He is correct that the inclusion of certain obligations in legislation may have consequences. In this case, I do not believe the consequences he outlined would arise because the rights provided for in the amendment are afforded to the victim or complainant and could not be used by the defence. It is nonetheless important to consider potential consequences when introducing legislation on these fundamental changes to criminal practice.