Ivana Bacik (Independent)

Like others Senators, I welcome the provisions included in the Bill. For the main part, the Bill is technical and deals with the coming into being of the new criminal courts complex. Other Senators have paid tribute to the Courts Service and the Department for the efficient and timely near-completion of the complex. I have spoken with colleagues who are criminal law practitioners and people involved in the prosecution service and understand the building is due to come on stream in early December, although the Minister referred to the end of this month. In any case, it is earlier than previously anticipated. From the Minister's nod, I think it might be December rather than November.

According to those who have seen the complex, it will be a major improvement. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and look forward to the committee's visit to the new complex. In particular, we welcome the provision of a reception area for jurors. In my days in the Circuit Criminal Court I remember the chaos that ensued as prospective jurors mingled with members of the public, gardaí, prison officers, accused persons, solicitors and barristers at the side of the Four Courts building, in Courts Nos. 24, 25 and 26. Improvements have been made in the provision of accommodation for jurors, witnesses, vulnerable witnesses and victims. There will be greatly enhanced provisions for these categories, which is particularly welcome in the case of victims. Research I have conducted and that carried out by others on the need for greater provision for victims shows that one of the key complaints victims tend to have concerns the physical space they are provided with in court premises. All too often, they are left in close proximity to the accused or members of his or her family. This can be very traumatic and distressing for victims and vulnerable witnesses. I welcome the new era of criminal trials that the Bill will herald, where appropriate space will be provided for such persons and they can remain separate. This is also important for accused persons.

There has been some griping among practitioners. Deputy Rabbitte has commented on the fact that practitioners can no longer switch between civil and criminal work as they currently do at the Bar. They will now be much more inclined to confine themselves to one area of work. That is not necessarily a bad thing and might explain why an unprecedented number of criminal practitioners recently took silk in the Law Library. As Deputy Rabbitte suggested, the Minister could start a barge service along the river to facilitate those who wish to move between the Four Courts and the criminal complex. That is a somewhat light-hearted comment but joking aside many of those engaged in criminal trial work must be engaged in civil work also because of judicial reviews. Senator MacDonald referred to one such review under way. There is a major increase in the number of judicial reviews arising from criminal proceedings. There has been great expansion in this area; therefore, it is important there remains a crossover in so far as criminal practitioners can also be engaged in judicial reviews arising from trials.

I welcome the bulk of the Bill and compliment the Courts Service on bringing the new building on stream. It marks an improvement in the running of criminal trials. Many of the provisions of the Bill are administrative in nature and give effect to the move. The Labour Party submitted amendments on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil but the Minister did not accept them. I intend to resubmit the amendments to Part 2 of the Bill as they deserve substantive comment.

Part 1 is the preliminary Part of the Bill; Part 3 deals with the combined courts office, while Part 4 deals with miscellaneous provisions. There can be no issue with these. I welcome the expansion in Part 4 of the category of persons who can take recognisances. This will improve the efficiency of the system and is a welcome change.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with temporary custody. I take the Minister's point that it deals with the difficulty where persons have tended to remain in Garda custody when in holding cells in court. This change facilitate will their removal into the custody of the Irish Prison Service. The Labour Party amendment in the Dáil sought to place a limitation on the persons who could be placed in temporary custody. Sections 6 and 7 refer to prisoners, within the meaning of the Prisons Act 2007, but section 7 extends the reference to include other persons. I presume this must relate to section 6(2) which deals with a person lawfully in the custody of the Garda Síochána but the Labour Party amendment seeks to make it specific. Take Y

That is important because we may generally describe these as administrative or technical provisions but Part 2 deals with the deprivation of liberty and we must be very careful about how these provisions are framed. We must ensure they are framed in as tight and as narrow a way as possible to ensure we do not in any way encroach on constitutional rights to liberty. Will the Minister of State consider placing this limitation on the definition of "person" in section 7? I will make this point again on Committee and Report Stages.

Section 7(b) allows for the holding in temporary custody of people not only for the purpose of making their own court appearance - where one assumes they would be the accused - but also their participation as a witness or in another capacity in a court hearing involving them. This might require more caution and I would like to know what the Minister of State envisages that this section will cover. On Committee Stage, we may want to tease out what exactly this is designed to cover. Why would a person be held in temporary custody? One assumes it is somebody who is already serving a sentence and is being asked to appear as a witness in another trial or who may be appearing as an accused in another trial. The phrase, "in another capacity" is very broadly drafted given that we are speaking about the deprivation of liberty. Another aspect of this relates to the safeguards for persons placed in temporary custody.

Section 10 facilitates the handing over of medications to the holding area officer, which is very practical and section 11 deals with the functions of the holding area officer, including granting the power of search to the holding area officer. We should examine this in more detail on Committee and Report Stages.

I want to ask the Minister of State about section 12. It is a facilitative section, allowing the Minister to prescribe the standards to be employed in the safekeeping of a person who has been placed in temporary custody. What type of regulations are envisaged to be applied? It rings alarm bells for me. This will provide for persons who, for the most part, have been convicted of offences to be held in custody by the Prison Service. Those convicted would now be held on a different premise, for the purpose of appearing in court in another matter or participating in a court hearing as a witness or in the unspecified other capacity. However, we are not being told what are the safeguards; we are simply told the Minister will prescribe. What are the criteria by which the Minister will prescribe safeguards? What reference point will he or she have for the development of standards? I am conscious that custody regulations and prison rules are already in place but I am not clear to which standards the Minister will refer because they are rather different.

In sections 5 to 12, which make up Part 2 of the Bill and which deal with temporary custody, there is no limitation on the length of time a person can spend in custody. The Minister of State mentioned the very diverse range of courts Acts. I was aware that they were being codified and I am delighted the Minister of State has confirmed this. It is long overdue and a welcome development. Undoubtedly, those in the Law Reform Commission are the best people to develop this codification. The Minister of State is aware that at present, the Courts Acts provide for various time limits for which persons may be held in custody prior to court appearances. The Minister of State will recall that "as soon as practicable" was the formula used in one Act and "forthwith" has been used in other Acts.

I should declare an interest because I was involved in a case where the meaning of "forthwith" in that context was considered. The question was for how long one could hold a person lawfully in custody prior to bringing him or her to court where the obligation was to bring him or her to court "forthwith". We won a case in the Supreme Court on that basis and the legislation was subsequently changed. People may well be held for periods of hours or days under these provisions. Will the Minister of State clarify whether it is envisaged that anyone would be held overnight in temporary custody? My reading of the Minister of State's speech is that it is not envisaged and that what is envisaged is simply a transference for a matter of hours to a holding cell of people who are already being held by the Garda under other powers while they wait to be called up before a judge.

There is nothing in the Bill about time limits but there are plenty of references to time limits in other legislation providing the Garda with powers to hold people in custody. How will that tally with the provisions here for temporary custody, undefined as they are? Perhaps "temporary" is the only word that implies there is any time limit and for me that raises issues. According to section 5, "'temporary custody' shall be construed in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) of section 6" but there is no sense there of any outer limit. Clearly, it is anticipated that it would be for a matter of hours as people wait for the court list to be gone through, but Senator McDonald already referred to difficulties with court lists. A court list may go over to another day. In that case, will a person be capable of being held in temporary custody overnight?

I raise these issues with the Minister of State to ensure the Bill can be brought into effect in as timely a way as possible and that the operation of the new courts complex will be as smooth as possible. As I stated, I very much welcome the Bill and I recognise that most of its provisions are purely technical. However, I urge some caution that the provisions under Part 2 relate to the deprivation of liberty.