Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire ar ais go dtí an Teach. I congratulate the Minister at the outset. There are some really good commonsense, progressive measures in this Bill, stuff that will actually make it easier to run criminal trials.It will make it easier for jurors, complainants and people who are accused. I welcome the provisions of the Bill, which are common sense measures that will help the flow of the criminal justice system.

I will speak on the primary function of the Bill being the establishment of preliminary trial hearings. In Dublin, there has been for a long time a trial in respect of what are called pre-trial hearings but they have been hampered very substantially by the points the Minister has raised, insofar as they cannot deal with certain issues because there is no provision in law, essentially, for evidential or other pre-trial issues to be dealt with in a conclusive way before a jury is sworn in and the accused is put into the hands of the jury. I welcome that we have a clear legislative statement that there is a way we can do this that makes sense and avoids the necessity for a drawn-out trial process which results in very little efficiency.

In acknowledging that, under the current system, when a trial starts it is open to either side to raise an issue of procedure, admissibility of evidence or whatever it might be with the trial judge at that time. Only when that judge has been put in situand the accused has been put into the hands of the jury can those processes properly be adjudicated. The result of that is damaging in many ways. It prolongs the process for the defendant or accused person in the first instance. The accused is a seldom considered party in these proceedings, for obvious reasons. However, people are innocent until proven guilty when they go before the court and are entitled to be treated with respect and efficiency.

Perhaps more important, as we have acknowledged in this House on a number of occasions, are the difficulties faced by complainants who come before the courts. It is a tremendously stressful and difficult experience for somebody who is accusing another person of a crime, particularly where that is a violation, a sexual crime or something like that, to come before the court as a witness. Until now, victims or complainants who come to court often do not know when the case will be heard. They know it is listed for a certain day and might get on that day. Even if it gets on, there might be days of wrangling and legal argument over particular issues. That happens only after the trial starts so complainants might come to court on the first day of the trial ready to give evidence, make their claim and say what happened, only to find there are two or three days of legal argument where they sit in the victim suite in the Criminal Courts of Justice or in a room in a court elsewhere in the country waiting for that legal argument to subside and be resolved. The effect on such persons is that they are sitting around for days waiting for the real process to start, as far as they are concerned. In that scenario, it is unfair that complainants who come to court and the accused person should have to wait around.

Another party that is perhaps sometimes forgotten when we discuss criminal justice matters is jurors. In every case, 12 ordinary citizens have given up their time and life experience to come and pass judgment on the facts in a case and decide about the guilt or innocence of an individual. The system does not work without those citizens who come and give their time. They are an incredibly valuable part of it. Invariably, people who been have involved in jury service will express frustration that they must be excluded from discussion about evidential issues. One cannot ask a juror to unhear a piece of evidence that has been ruled inadmissible, for example. They must be removed from the courtroom and they sit in the jury room awaiting the conclusion of that legal argument before they are told whatever it is they might be told. I know from many friends and colleagues who have done jury service that they find it incredibly frustrating. They are told the trial starts on a certain day and will take X number of days. However, the first three days may be spent sitting in the jury room, waiting for legal argument to be completed. It is the wrong signal to send out to people about our criminal justice system, which can be more efficient. This Bill will make it more efficient. It will avoid the necessity for juries to be discommoded and avoid the stress for complainants or other persons who are parties to the trial, including witnesses. It circumvents much of that and makes perfect sense that we resolve these issues by way of a preliminary trial hearing before the process gets going.

I welcome the process. I think it is progressive. I note what the Minister said about the provision of information to juries, which is addressed in Part 3 of the Bill and arose from the report of the Law Reform Commission. I have referred a number of times in the House to the importance of the good work done by the Law Reform Commission. In that regard, I welcome that its work is being taken on board in the Bill.I welcome the fact it has been taken on board.

I might just raise a few technical issues in respect of the Bill. Section 6(2), which falls under the preliminary trial hearing heading, states:

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the trial court shall, where— (a) an accused is charged with a relevant offence,

(b) the prosecution or the accused makes an application to the court for a preliminary trial hearing to be held, and

(c) no preliminary trial hearing has previously been held in respect of the trial of such offence,

hold such a preliminary trial hearing.

The fact that section 6(2)(c)states that "no preliminary trial hearing has previously been held" appears to suggest that there can only ever be one preliminary trial hearing in respect of an offence. Perhaps I am misreading that. However, I wonder if we are unnecessarily restricting the ability of the courts to deal with an issue that might arise, for example, between the preliminary trial hearing and the start of the trial itself. As I said, maybe I have misread that. I am quite happy to be corrected if that is the case.

In respect of Part 3, which deals with the provision of information to juries, it is a progressive measure that I welcome. In many trials, particularly trials that go on for a period of time, it is most important that juries have access to certain documentation. I note the list provided in section 12(2). It is fairly normal at the moment for juries to get access to maps, reports and other documentary pieces of evidence that come before the court. However, they do not get opening and closing statements from counsel or the judge's charge. The judge's charge is an important document because it allows juries to see what the judge said about the trial and the decision he or she has to make.

I have some concerns about the provision of opening and closing statements made by barristers in the course of a trial, because they are not evidence. They are merely the manner in which a particular barrister is setting out the facts in the trial as he or she sees it. I have some concerns about juries having access to those documents because they are not evidential documents; they are merely the expressions of a point of view of one party to the case. I have a small concern, particularly in respect of the opening statement, that it might colour the judgment of the jury inappropriately in circumstances where the opening statement is usually only made by the prosecution.

I also wish to address two other matters. In respect of sections 13 to 15, inclusive, which amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, I wonder if there has been a missed opportunity there for us to perhaps fix other things that exist, particularly amendments that were inserted into the 1967 Act from section 4(a) onwards.

Finally, under section 18 a change is made to the period that is allowed for the defence to provide expert reports, extending that period. Currently, the defence must disclose expert reports to the prosecution at least ten days before the start of the trial. This period is extended to 28 days under the Bill. I wonder if that is a necessary provision, given all of the resources that are available to the prosecution in any given case. Does it make sense to further hamper the defence in bringing an expert report? I wonder if consideration has been given as to what effect this will have on the defence.

I welcome the Bill. It is a huge step forward in eliminating unnecessary red tape. It will make the trial process much smoother.