Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

Amendment No. 25 deletes the word "and" between paragraphs (a) and (b) in section 37 and facilitates amendment No. 26 which inserts a new paragraph (c) in section 37. Amendment No. 26 amends section 24(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. The amendment addresses a lacuna in the law governing the production in court of accused persons who had been remanded in custody. The jurisdiction of a District Court to remand a person on bail or in custody derives from section 21 of the 1967 Act. That section provides that the court may, subject to the provisions of the 1967 Act, remand the accused from time to time as the occasion requires.

Section 24 of the 1967 Act deals with periods of remand, including the circumstances upon which a person who has been remanded in custody can be further remanded in their absence. It is clear from subsection (5)(a) that those circumstances are limited to illness or accident. However, there are situations where it is reasonable for a prisoner not to be produced, for example, where they have been lawfully produced before another court. This can happen where they have charges before a number of courts and remand dates coincide or where they are produced in the High Court on foot of their own application - normally under Article 40 of the Constitution - making it impossible for the Governor to produce them in the District Court to which they have been remanded.

This amendment has addressed the difficulty by adding a new provision in subsection (5)(a) to deal with cases where the non-appearance is "for any other good and sufficient reason". Where the court is satisfied that the reasons are good and sufficient, it may extend a person's period of remand. The amendment ensures a non-appearance must be explained to the court's satisfaction. That is a strong safeguard that will prevent any arbitrary extensions of remand times. It protects against any abuse and gives good and timely protection to the individual concerned.