Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 18, lines 8 and 9, to delete ", the Attorney General or the Director".

The wording to this amendment is different from the one I tabled on Committee Stage on section 14, an appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court. On Committee Stage, I agreed the amendment could be better drafted. I have since redrafted it to encompass what was raised during those proceedings. The Minister was sympathetic to my point.

There is a clear imbalance in the section as currently drafted because an appeal lies by the acquitted person or the Director of Public Prosecutions from a determination of a court under section 10. As I said on Committee Stage, in practice it would only be an appeal by the acquitted person because section 10 specifies a decision will be made in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions for a retrial order. If the acquitted person were appealing from a determination of the court under section 10, it is inappropriate that the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions would have a role in certifying that the determination involved a point of law of exceptional importance before an appeal could be taken.

I suggested to the Minister on Committee Stage that it would be more balanced and fairer to the acquitted person if it were simply at the discretion of the court. I want to leave it up to the court to make the determination or certify that it involves a point of law of exceptional public importance so that the appeal can be taken.

The Minister referred to section 29, appeals, but he did accept in principle that the appeal provided for in that section is somewhat different. It relates to an application for a retrial order where someone has been acquitted. It is a new and radical departure from our current principle that a person shall not be retried following an acquittal. Given that this procedure under this Part is entirely new, we must ensure the acquitted person is treated as fairly as possible.

I am willing to accept there should be filtering mechanisms in section 14 and that an appeal cannot be taken as a matter of course. It is wrong, however, that one of the parties involved, indeed the party in whose favour the decision is made, should have a role in certifying before an appeal can be taken by an acquitted person.

The Minister indicated a certain willingness to accept this principle on Committee Stage. I will not press the amendment if he indicates he will accept it, even as an amendment in the other House.