Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is welcome to the Chamber, as always. The Green Party welcomes this Bill. It is a step in the right direction. Of course, we would like more but, because there has been, relatively speaking, such poor progress over many years in the administration of justice in the criminal courts, this is a significant step in the right direction.

Justice delayed is justice denied. That is more than a legal adage; it is a maxim that goes to the very heart of our Constitution and of the common law jurisdiction. It protects both the accused and the complainant, as well as the people, who need a system that is efficient and in which they have confidence.This Bill, when enacted, will make the system more efficient.

It seems that the criminal law has some catching up to do on the civil law. They are very different but in recent years the civil law has made good inroads. I am thinking of the retired judge, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly. The Commercial Court was a positive step in the right direction in terms of pre-court issues being determined. Case management of disputes is very important. In a sense, this is the first tangible progress we have seen where the criminal courts are catching up on the civil courts, although there is still a long way to go in terms of both courts.

I refer to voir dire, which is an essential part of a criminal trial. If any of those matters can be dealt with before a jury is impanelled it would be very welcome. A jury is impanelled sometimes on a Wednesday and within minutes the members could be told that they are not needed until the following Monday or to come back on Friday at 12 noon and they will see where they are at that time. The jury turn up on the Friday and are told that it might be the following Monday or Tuesday. That is not just a delay in justice or suspending the role of a jury; it is in a sense putting on hold their thought process. The jury should not deliberate and make a decision until they hear all the evidence but if any of those big delays can be resolved at a pre-hearing stage it would be fantastic and a win-win for everyone. If an issue emerges during a trial latitude will be shown because people's liberty is at stake.

The order of a judge in a pre-hearing application under section 6(a) is binding. That is very welcome but I hope there is sufficient latitude in section 6(b) because occasionally, and I do not want it to be the norm, something may arise and there is so much at stake that it would not make sense to go through a long, drawn-out trial. That is very hard on the victim. I refer to an indictable offence when one knows there is a clear ground for an appeal in a matter which a trial judge makes an order on at a preliminary trial hearing. Section 6 (14)(ii) should cover it where it states: "... where the court considers it appropriate and so directs, have effect as though it had been made in the course of the trial ...". If we look at that in reverse, the judge may have sufficient latitude because there could be other trials backed up when this novel point arises and it might well be in the interests of everyone, from the taxpayer to the victims, to have it settled rather than going through a long case. I believe there is just about enough latitude in the Bill for the judge to operate his or her inherent jurisdiction, which he or she should be free to do in a criminal matter.

I welcome all the measures in respect of juries but they are only tinkering at the sides, so to speak. This country needs to get real and have a complete overhaul of jury selection. Only one in five attend. I think it was an English commentator who said many years ago that jurors are largely middle aged, middle minded and middle class. Despite what the judge might communicate to prospective jurors before they are impanelled, they do not understand that a stipulative number of objections are made without cause shown. There could be more transparency in the process. For instance, there is a danger in terms of those objections on a specific matter before the jury for consideration and deliberation.Could it be engineered, if it is inadvertent or whatever, that predominantly one sex sits on a jury? It is the just the way the ball rolls and if there are a number of objections, one can tell the next 20 coming before it with the majority of a particular sex. It is just something to look out for but that is for another day.

I hope the Minister will give us a commitment that she is prepared to look at a radical overhaul of jury selection. It could be made more representative of our country. We need to look at an employer's grace which allows an employee to do jury service. Is there a possibility of some form of remuneration? Some people just cannot afford to be on a jury. It is part of our criminal justice system and I would like to see jury service and participation open to many more people.

This legislation is a step in the right direction. The Minister should be commended that within a year of taking office, we are seeing such progress. I look forward to the Bill going through its different Stages in the House. The Green Party supports these common-sense and progressive initiatives, which will be to the benefit of the victim, as well as the accused, who is presumed innocent until proved guilty. It will be easier on the judges when a set system is in place. They are doing their utmost but we need some ground rules. Now these will be on a primary legislative footing. It is important society always has trust and confidence in the jury system and knows it is beyond reproach. We must always protect the jury trial system. This legislation supports the criminal law system by expediting and progressing in a constructive way how one gets to the trial hearing. The Courts Service will say the waiting times are coming down. However, in certain cases there is still too big of a wait for some people to get their case on. All the other initiatives are to be welcomed.