Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am grateful to the Minister and had anticipated what he would say on this issue. As he stated, the difficulty does not arise with the written statements which are given on notice. The difficulty in respect of the O'Donoghue case, on which he has given greater detail, arose because the oral evidence of the mother of the young boy departed from the written statement. I had at the time and continue to have immense sympathy for the mother who spoke from the heart as she was entitled to do. The difficulty is that it showed up problems in respect of lack of clarity in the victim impact procedure at the time. She clearly was unaware that a difficulty might arise and yet it did and it was unfair to the accused person to have brought up references to other information that had not been part of the trial process in which he was convicted.

However, it would be inappropriate for bereaved relatives to be given the sort of pre-emptive warning that Mrs. Justice Macken referred to in respect of contempt of court. This amendment seeks to ensure courts do not consider themselves to be obliged to give such warnings by virtue of the obiter statements of Mrs. Justice Macken in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Although I will not press this amendment at this stage, I ask the Minister, who is in a better position to so do, to ascertain whether courts are in the practice of giving such warnings. I also will check but if this is happening as a matter of routine, it would seem to be unduly burdensome on bereaved families. I cannot discern the necessity for giving such a warning in every case. While I do not believe this is taking place in every case, I seek to avoid the practice from developing.