Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber today and thank her for the opportunity to discuss the Bill. I support its passage to Committee Stage but there is considerable work to be done on it. The issue should be approached bearing in mind the basic principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental bedrock of our legal system. As such, the decision to refuse someone bail is should be taken very seriously. In certain circumstances, such as when there is a real risk of further violent crime being committed, bail may be refused or agreed to on conditions. As a general principle, incarcerating someone before they are proven guilty should be an action of last resort.

It is often stated at the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality , of which I am a member, that there are too many people in our prison system. This is particularly true when in the context of non-violent offences such as a failure to pay a fine. The “lock them up” attitude may be good for selling newspapers but it is not an effective or humane approach to making society safer. Caution is needed when discussing measures that could increase the number of people denied bail and thus incarcerated while awaiting trial.

Elements of the Bill such as the commitments to increased transparency are very welcome. The Bill would require a court to provide reasons for its decision to grant or refuse bail or to set bail conditions. I welcome this measure as a means of promoting transparency and openness in our judicial system. It is important that there is justification for decisions which are made.

I am concerned by other areas of the proposed legislation. Section 3 would expand possible bail conditions such as prohibiting contact with the alleged victim or revoking a driving license. However, the Committee on Justice and Equality has been given evidence of bail decisions being made in two or three minutes because of the volume of cases judges need to get through. In that context, time pressures may lead to blanket bail conditions that are not proportionate or necessary being handed out. This view tallies with research conducted by the Irish Penal Reform Trust which showed that people charged with low-level offences were often given several bail conditions, regularly similar to those accused of higher-level offences. In this regard, some of the suggested additional conditions are worrying, in particular the imposition of a night time curfew between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. In some instances, such a condition may be warranted. However, if the Minister wants to expand court powers, she must ensure that the courts are adequately staffed and have the resources needed to wield those powers with due consideration. This question of available resources also touches on the issue that if people are denied bail, they must be brought before a court in a timely manner which was raised in discussion of the Bill in the Dáil. This principle is enshrined in international human rights law. If it is deemed necessary to make bail conditional or deny it in exceptional circumstances, the accused must have a trial within a reasonable amount of time.

I have strong reservations about section 4, which deals with the use of electronic tagging. I welcome efforts to have fewer people held in custody but this is very dangerous territory. The Council of Europe, which is the primary human rights body in Europe, has recognised this strategy but it has several important caveats regarding proportionality, proper regulation and respect for civil liberties. There is enormous potential for a system of electronic tagging to be abused. In principle, I have serious concerns with tagging people in this manner. Private security companies may be contracted to run electronic tagging schemes. Their primary motivation is profit as opposed to the rights of the individual or the welfare of citizens. That has been seen in terms of direct provision and could be seen in regard to this issue. In light of these concerns, I welcome the Tanaiste’s decision to establish a working group to specifically discuss this contentious point. We need to be mindful of whether it is morally right and whether it is effective.

My background is working with people who have addiction and substance abuse problems and their families. The biggest thing lacking in the Bill is that there is not enough consideration of proper support for people on bail. If we want to reduce crime and repeat offences and ensure that bail conditions are met, the right supports for people must be provided. Affected people are often in enormously difficult situations and from hugely underprivileged backgrounds. Crimes such as theft are often linked to drug addiction, poverty or alcohol addiction. It will not be as popular in the papers as being tough on crime but we need to push an evidence-based and humane approach to reducing crime. Bail supports that include measures such as drug treatment, addiction counselling and mental health provisions can have a huge impact. Such supports should be a central feature of the Bill but are currently absent from it.

In common with other Senators, I support the Bill going to Committee Stage but there is work to be done there. In particular in respect of the absence of the right supports, I am concerned that the Bill takes a punitive approach as opposed to a humane, genuine effort to reduce crime.