Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 concern the definition of "new and compelling evidence". I referred earlier to what we understand by "compelling" in the case of tainted acquittals. This time the definition relates to the procedure in section 8 which permits the DPP to seek an order for a retrial where fresh evidence emerges post-acquittal.

Amendment No. 6 is focused on the part of the definition which goes to the meaning of "new". It clarifies that the words "evidence adduced in the proceedings" refers to evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Amendment No. 7 is focused on the part of the definition which goes to the meaning of "compelling", namely, paragraph (c). Subparagraph (i) remains unchanged, namely, the evidence must be reliable. Subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) have been amended. The amendment to subparagraph (ii) is aimed at tightening up the wording. The original phrase "is substantial" was somewhat at large while the substituted text "is of significant probative value" clearly refers to the evidential value of the new evidence.

The purpose of the amendment to subparagraph (iii) is to ensure that it is the criminal standard that applies to the DPP's determination to make a retrial application on the basis of new evidence and to the Court of Criminal Appeal's assessment of the application. I have already set out in section 9 the rationale for introducing this high standard in the context of the tainted acquittal retrial procedure. The same rationale applies in this case. The amendments have the added benefit of applying similar tests to each of the retrial procedures.