Seanad debates

Tuesday, 14 February 2017

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015: [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] Report and Final Stages

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am objecting to the proposal to recommit, and I believe the Minister has also objected, on the basis that this was something that we had already debated in the Seanad and which was not changed any further in the Dáil. We have other examples of this sort of presumption, which does not operate in such a way as to require an accused person to give evidence. Far from it. They simply must raise a reasonable doubt. I was about to say that section 4(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1964 creates just that sort of presumption when it states that it is presumed in murder cases that the accused "intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted". We have clear case law from DPP v. Hull, and from other cases, that that is a presumption in aid of the prosecution that may be rebutted by the defendant merely raising a doubt as to the existence of the presumption. It does not reverse the legal burden of proof; nor does it require the defendant to give evidence orally in their own case. I strongly oppose any proposal to recommit.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.