Seanad debates

Tuesday, 30 May 2017

Criminal Justice Bill 2016: Second Stage

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Niall Ó DonnghaileNiall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I never enjoy rising to disagree with my colleague, Senator Conway, even if in just a small, modest way. Tá fearadh na fáilte roimh an Tánaiste go dtí an Seanad inniu. The Tánaiste is very welcome. I have actually found the contributions from colleagues thus far very insightful. I agree with the vast bulk of the sentiments expressed in respect of and the practicalities relating to this Bill. Obviously, as the Tánaiste will be aware from previous discussions, our party has some concerns, which I do not believe are insurmountable. If we were to overcome them, it would greatly benefit and add to the legislation.

I will start by saying that Sinn Féin welcomes the opportunity to speak on this Bill. We note that the Garda Inspectorate recently raised with the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality the fact that gardaí are obliged to seek warrants in order to arrest persons who breached their bail conditions in the past . This Bill would amend the position in this regard, which is a welcome initiative. It is interesting that the Government has sought to listen to the Garda Inspectorate in this particular aspect of its complaint regarding bail but not where it complained that there is virtually no monitoring of suspects while they are out on bail. It has reached the point where the Garda Inspectorate has said that it doubts whether gardaí at many stations would even notice if a suspect failed to show up to sign in.

We recognise that levels of crime which are not insignificant are committed by people while on bail. However, it is important that we look at this in a rounded manner and not simply base justice policy on crude tabloid headlines. The fact is that suspects would be monitored more effectively while on bail if the Garda had the resources to do so. Colleagues have already touched on the issue of resourcing. People would, of course, be less likely to be out on bail if their court cases were held promptly. That issue has also been touched upon. This is not something that can be addressed by simply having more legislation that will inevitably lead to greater levels of incarceration. It is fundamentally about using resources more effectively.

When the legislation was debated in the Dáil, there was extensive discussion around electronic monitoring and how it would operate. Electronic monitoring is not a substitute for evidence-based crime prevention measures. We are in favour of protecting the right to bail and the presumption of innocence within the legal system. We recognise that, by virtue of the numbers within the Houses of the Oireachtas, it is likely that electronic monitoring will become a feature of our criminal justice procedures. On that basis, we will engage in respect of the legislation and put forward amendments in an effort to make it better.

There was an attempt in the Dáil to remove the provision concerning the amendment of section 6 of the Act of 1997, under which a garda is given the power to arrest a person without warrant if the officer is of the view that the person is about to contravene a condition of their recognisance. Essentially, gardaí are being given a very wide-ranging power to deal with crimes that have not yet been committed. It may be that the potential crime is not going to happen, but as long as a garda thinks that it is, he or she is permitted to make an arrest. It should not be the case that powers of arrest are simply extended when there are no resources being put in place for bail supports and services. The particular provision is vague and needs to be addressed.

To return to the issue of electronic tagging, we will table amendments that are based on the Council of Europe's 2014 recommendations on electronic monitoring. It is absolutely essential that safeguards are put in place that will protect data accrued from the use of tagging. It is also essential that where monitoring is happening, it is carried out by a body on a not-for-profit basis. The Minister will know that just last week we passed legislation that sought to counter some of the very real and dangerous issues that exist in terms of accruing data and how it is handled and possibly misused and abused subsequently. There are issues here regarding Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to privacy provisions. This is not some off-the-wall proposal. It is reasonable, necessary and proportionate in light of the technology-based world in which we now exist. We all acknowledge that danger. The Minister's response to these arguments in the Dáil was deficient to say the least. She has gone on record as saying that the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 are sufficient. I beg to differ. If the amendments we table are not accepted, we may find ourselves recalling this lack of understanding of how data is used when there is an inevitable scandal in years to come. I do not say that to be contentious or confrontational; I say it because my party and I have very genuine concerns that what I have outlined could come to pass.

The Minister maintains that introducing an amendment which would prevent private operators engaging in monitoring on a for-profit basis would have an impact on how the system is currently overseen by the Prison Service. There is no law which says that the State cannot do this. There is absolutely no rule that says we must privatise and outsource everything. There are some things that simply should not be outsourced and this is one of them.

We will also table amendments to ensure that judges provide, in writing, reasons for their decisions. This is not a lot to ask. It is not an onerous task for the courts to provide something that makes available a record of decisions made in bail cases. This would be as much in the State's interest as in that of the defendant who is applying for bail.If it is not possible to have it in all cases, it should at least be available on the request of the defendant. The useful suggestion was made in the Dáil that if a judge does not provide written reasoning for a decision, the audio recording of the judgment could be automatically transcribed. That would probably be a costly measure but we need to examine whether there is consistency in decisions on bail applications.

Several other areas of the Bill were not adequately dealt with in the Dáil and Sinn Féin will be tabling amendments to rectify these areas as indicated in Dáil debate. We ask that the Minister reflect on these issues and either accept our amendments at a later Stage or consider bringing forward amendments of her own.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.