David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their thoughts on this. The impact or the effect of the amendment would be to require that sufficient information be given to a victim to allow him or her to decide whether to request a review of any decision not to proceed with or to discontinue an investigation, not to prosecute or to discontinue a prosecution or a decision to deal with a person other than by trial. These are the four areas that are referred to as subparagraphs 2(c), (d), (e) and (f) in the amendment itself. The challenge with this is that it is very subjective. It would require An Garda Síochána, the Ombudsman Commission or the Director of Public Prosecutions to know what information would, in any particular case, be "sufficient" for the individual victim to decide whether he or she wishes to request a review of the decision in question. What would be sufficient for one person might not be sufficient for another. It is very subjective. Who decides what is sufficient?

Quite apart from the fact the relevant authority may not know what information would be sufficient in any given case, it is only a decision not to prosecute which may be reviewed. There is no right to a review of other decisions included in the amendment. In respect of a decision not to prosecute, a summary of the reasons on which this decision was made is the appropriate information to give to a victim in the circumstances and will provide a sufficient basis, in the vast majority of case, upon which to decide whether to seek a review.

The challenge here is that the amendment is very subjective. One person's sufficient is not another person's sufficient. Who decides what is sufficient information? Furthermore, the amendment only pertains to decisions not to prosecute. For these reasons, we are not in a position to accept the amendment. If the Senators think about this, they will see that our reasons for not accepting it are valid. The amendment, if accepted, would cause major difficulties.

The other issue that arises is technical in nature. The amendment is not inserted in the correct position in the section. It has been placed within the list of information which a victim may request. It would need to be a new subsection in the section rather than a new paragraph in the list. If Senators look at what is actually qualifying the section here, all the subsections are qualified earlier on and it would not make sense to insert the amendment here. Thus, from a technical perspective it is wrong but more importantly, it is completely unworkable. Who decides what is sufficient? The amendment is unworkable from that point of view.