Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 24, line 15, before "arising" to insert the following:

"which gives to a directed verdict or which prevented the jury from considering evidence which was properly admissible or a misdirection of law to the jury".

This amendment was debated on Committee Stage, and I believe the Minister accepted it in principle then. It is based on the expert group report on balance in the criminal law. Page 248 of that report recommended a similar wording to qualify where the with-prejudice prosecution appeals may be taken. It is simply to say that these would arise where the decision is made on a question of law which gives rise to a directed verdict - I apologise for the typo in the amendment - or which prevented the jury from considering evidence which was properly admissible or a misdirection of law to the jury. The Minister indicated on Committee State that he would table an amendment in similar terms on Report Stage, or perhaps it will be in the other House.