Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I second the amendment so ably proposed by my colleague, Senator Regan. Although I am not a legal practitioner, I have strong views on this matter and believe retrospection should be allowed. Senator Regan quoted the words of the learned Mr. Gerard Hogan, SC, on the matter: they are significant and telling and should be heeded by the Government.

When we speak of miscarriages of justice, it is normally with regard to people who have been wrongly convicted. However, we can take as an example the murder of a member of our family and subsequent acquittal of the accused. It might be discovered later that the acquittal was the result of deceit, fraud, perjury or intimidation. Are we to suggest it would be in the interests of justice that the person concerned could not be tried again? I have heard these words used on numerous occasions throughout the debate. If one were to ask the question of the general public, a large majority would say there should not be such an outcome. If the acquittal were made on the basis suggested, they would say there should be a procedural change. We are seeking such a procedural change. Let the Director of Public Prosecutions decide.

My colleague, Senator Regan, has done a tremendous amount of research. I ask the Minister to give great thought to what he stated on the matter. If the amendment cannot be accepted in this House, further thought should be given to the subject before it is envisaged that this law will be enacted. It comes down to the fundamental act of fairness and justice; as stated, it would be "in the interests of justice". It is in the interests of justice that we propose the amendment. If a relative of mine, the Minister or anybody else in the House was murdered by somebody - I use the example of murder, although there are many others - and new evidence was discovered afterwards about the person concerned, it would be in the interests of justice that he or she be tried again.