Colm Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome Senator Crown's initiative in drafting this Bill. It was not drafted overnight and much effort was put into it. I thank him for doing that. I pay tribute to any Member of the House who makes the effort to bring forward a draft Bill. Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree with the proposal for a number of reasons. One reason is that section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 clearly makes it illegal to make representations to the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Bill before us does not take cognisance of that, although section 6 of the 1974 Act makes it unlawful to do so. There is no reference in this draft Bill to deal with that issue.

The other issue, which the Minister has comprehensively covered, is Article 35 of the Constitution which concerns the clear independence of the Judiciary. As someone who has practised as a solicitor for over 25 years, I understand the independence of the Judiciary. I will cite a simple example in this regard. A Circuit Court judge was dealing with appeals from the District Court and on his way into court someone rubbed up against him and said, "You remember me. You know me from our previous involvement". The person obviously would have been involved in the same political party. When the appeal of the person who had run into the Circuit Court judge came up in court, the judge said "I think it would be inappropriate for me to deal with this matter and I am adjourning it until the next term". In all my dealings in the courts I have always found the Judiciary to act totally independently, regardless of any previous involvement they may have had when in private practice. They have always given fair decisions and hearings. In addition, they have always protected their independence and ensured that their decisions are arrived at without political or Government influence.

We have had a few example of bad judgments or bad decisions being made where the issue was not thought out - or the consequences of the way they had dealt with it were not thought out - but that does not mean we should tar everyone with the same brush. Over the last 50 years, the number of errors that were made is extremely small given the volume of activity going on in the courts, including the District Court, Circuit Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and the Supreme Court. The number of cases where something went very wrong is extremely small, despite the sheer volume of prosecutions and civil work involved.

Paragraph 3 of the Bill refers to communications. While it is a technical issue, it means that if the legislation is implemented I, as a legal practitioner, could no longer act in a family law matter. That is because my communication, if I was acting in a legal capacity, would be to the judge. Family law matters are in private, however, and therefore any representation I made would not be in the public domain. That is a technical question I have concerning the Bill. Any Member of the Oireachtas who is also in the legal profession could no longer act in a family law matter. I may be incorrect in saying so, but that is a technical interpretation of it.

I welcome anyone who comes forward with a draft Bill to highlight an issue. If legislative loopholes need to be tidied up in this legislation we should look at them, but I do not consider that the Bill before us is the way to deal with that. I am strongly of the view that section 6 of the 1974 Act should not be interfered with in any way. It is a powerful piece of legislation that is already in place and concerns the independence of the Judiciary, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána. It ensures that they cannot be interfered with by the Government or public representatives generally.

Unfortunately, on this occasion I will not be supporting the draft Bill. I agree with the Minister of State, whose speech was comprehensive in setting out why it is not possible for the Government to support it on this occasion.