Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of amendment No. 1 is to make it absolutely clear that everybody charged with the offence of corruption is entitled to have a jury trial, if they so require. The Bill, as it is drafted, provides for summary jurisdiction in minor cases, even if the person accused does not wish to be tried in the District Court.

This is a point of fundamental principle and I ask the Minister to bear a few points in mind. First, there have been several attempts to amend the law relating to dishonesty and theft, to bring in a capacity to have the trial on a theft charge heard in the District Court. I know from my experience as Attorney General that this has been proposed for many years but it has been rejected by successive Attorneys General on the basis that the reputational consequence of being convicted of theft, even for stealing a chocolate bar from one's local shop, is of such gravity that it could destroy a person's career or require a person to resign office.

In the course of the various debates that have been held on the legislative process on this issue, I remember there are more than 100 and possibly 200 cases where a conviction for an offence of dishonesty disqualifies a person from holding office. I need not underline how many such cases there are, but there is a vast number of things that one cannot do if one has a conviction for an offence of dishonesty. Let me give an example, one cannot be an officer in the local credit union if one has ever been convicted of stealing a chocolate bar. That is the law. It has not changed.

It is crucial, therefore, that we should be very careful in this House about whether we would ever allow a person to be brought before a judge in the District Court on a charge of corruption. On some basis it may be alleged that it is a minor offence, when from the point of view of the person accused, it could never be minor. A conviction for corruption that is equivalent in some sense to a drink driving offence or a careless driving or dangerous driving offence could never be minor for a person who is an upstanding member of the community. These offences could never have the same consequence. They are qualitatively different. The point is that there are so many occupations for which a conviction for dishonesty disqualifies a person, it would be grotesque to allow somebody to be convicted of an offence of dishonesty without allowing him or her the right to trial by jury.

Is this a purely theoretical legal point? It is not. Some of us are long enough in the tooth to remember when the head of the Young Liberals in England, Mr. Peter Hain, who later became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was set up for a shoplifting offence where it later transpired that the South African secret service, the Bureau for State Security, BOSS, had a hand in creating the circumstances in which he could be discredited.He was eventually acquitted in the United Kingdom of this charge, which was something very tiny involving an item in a grocery shop, but the consequences would have been enormous if he had been convicted. For example, he would never have gone on to become the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He was just a student at that time. He led the Young Liberals but he later turned to the Labour Party.

I ask Members to consider whether, in the political world, anybody could propose themselves as a candidate for election to even the most insignificant elected position if they had a conviction for corruption. What would the consequences be if a conviction for corruption could be thrown in one's face? They would be enormous for anybody and not just politicians. Could a tax inspector keep his or her job if he or she had a conviction for corruption? Could anybody retain any serious position of responsibility in a bank or a credit union, or in a local authority, whether in a management or an elected role? Could a person ever seek an important job having had a conviction for corruption? The answer must be that one cannot.

A conviction for corruption could never be a minor matter, even if it is taking a bribe to let somebody into a car park. Once one is convicted of corruption, the stigma is so huge that the question of disallowing trial by jury, in my strong opinion, simply does not arise. This section states that if somebody wants to avoid a jury trial, they should be allowed to consent to a summary trial. However, if they do not wish to be tried by a local judge in the District Court and want to have a jury trial, the offence of corruption is inherently so important that it is an absolute requirement that they are guaranteed that right.

Successive attempts have been made to introduce jurisdiction for the District Court to try a person against his or her wishes on a theft charge but they have been rebuffed for the reason that one cannot have one law for a bishop and one for the unemployed, the indigent or the homeless person who is accused of theft. The right to a good name belongs to everyone and if a bishop is accused of theft it is curtains for him if he is convicted in his local District Court. If that is the reputational consequence for him, or her depending on what church the bishop is in, the same rights must apply to anybody accused of the offence of corruption.

There is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by guaranteeing the right to trial by jury to anybody accused of corruption. If we already accord that right to anybody for even the pettiest theft charge, it must logically be the same for a corruption charge. If anything, corruption is inherently a more serious and more deadly conviction for a person's reputation than theft. There are many positions and areas of employment for which a person is ineligible, by statute, if they have a conviction for dishonesty. If there is such a regime relating to dishonesty it must, a fortiori, apply to convictions for corruption. One cannot be corrupt honestly so, ipso facto, if one is convicted of corruption one is convicted of an offence of dishonesty. This amendment has been tabled for that reason. There is absolutely nothing to be lost by making it. As we guarantee this to people who are accused of theft, there is nothing to be lost by giving somebody charged with corruption the right to be tried by 12 women and men who will hear all the evidence, rather than by a single judge.

Senators Boyhan and Craughwell and I believe the consequences of conviction are so grave and so destructive of a person's character and their future in society that there is no such thing as a minor charge of corruption and such a charge should not be taken against a person without the right to jury trial. This is a House of debate and the Minister may have a brilliant argument against the amendment but I can see no argument, in advance, that persuades me to do anything other than move it to a vote.