Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 11, line 26, after "concerned" to insert the following:

", for example DNA evidence or an admission by the person concerned".

This is the first amendment dealing with Part 3, which in some ways makes the most significant departure from current criminal procedure, which creates the new exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy. I stated already on Committee Stage that we need to ensure that the exceptions are drawn strictly given that this is such a departure from our current principle, that somebody who is acquitted cannot be retried on the same charge.

The amendment, which we discussed on Committee Stage, seeks to specify the sort of evidence which is constituted in the phrase "new and compelling evidence". The idea is that by specifying what sort of evidence might constitute new and compelling evidence, we would offer some sort of limitation and, I suppose, lay out a marker that this would be something that could be done only in rare and exceptional cases.

In drafting this amendment, I have drawn from the balance in the Criminal Law Review Group report and also from the English legislation. The Bill specifies that such evidence is reliable, substantial and implicates the person concerned with a high degree of probability in the commission of the relevant offence concerned, and the amendment would add, ", for example DNA evidence or an admission by the person concerned", which are two of the types of evidence that might be most likely to constitute new and compelling evidence.

The Minister gave a full response on the last occasion stating that it was not appropriate to specify types of evidence. He also stated that DNA evidence might not, in fact, constitute new and compelling evidence. He is correct about that, but the amendment does not state that it would. It merely states that such is the sort of evidence that might come to light and if it fulfils the other tests, could then constitute new and compelling evidence. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider, if not this specific wording, at least some wording to create a guideline as to the evidence that might be considered to be new and compelling in these exceptional cases where an acquittal is being reopened.