Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

With the indulgence of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, I would like to mention a point that is not covered in the Bill. Audio recordings of counsel are a possibility now to be served up to juries. For the day that is in it, the voice of Seamus McKenna, SC, was played on the radio this morning as part of "GunPlot". I have always been an advocate for the recording of trials as vital nuggets of history that can be released 30 years later such that there is no playing up to juries or juries being engaged in any play-acting by counsel, although I am not suggesting that would happen. Perhaps the Minister of State would take that on board. If trials were audio recorded, with files stored safely, it would be a wonderful bank of information for students of law. We could replay some of the brilliant trials of yesteryear. Ideally, a visual recording should also be made. This is well within the ability of the Courts Service and it could release them at a later stage.

In respect of section 1, I accept that anything that speeds up trials and stops a jury being sent out for a day and half or dismissed sporadically is to be welcomed. When a jury is sent home for a day and a half or a couple of days, jurors are told not to discuss the evidence with anyone and to not Google the case. This puts jurors under prolonged temptation. Expedited trials would be all well and good, but I would like to reflect on what Senator McDowell said. Last week, the Senator and I agreed to disagree on a suggestion he had put forward in respect of the personal insolvency legislation. He might recall that I said I was not convinced that works in practice or that it was necessary or practical, although it might work in theory in respect of it being a further hoop that lenders had to jump through. However, in respect of this Bill, it is the opposite in that Senator McDowell may have flagged something important. This Bill works in theory, but will it work in practice and what will be the reality in the courts? Might it be that a junior counsel is not regarded as being five-star if he or she does not have a need to go into court to tick this box in the interests of doing everything possible for, in particular, the accused, and or having these preliminary hearings before the trials? I am conscious of that. Despite Senator McDowell's concerns, I would still proceed with this, but with a health warning and very vigilant judges.

I also have concerns in regard to documentation provision to juries. On Second Stage, it was agreed that this issue was a matter for another day. We need a fundamental overhaul of the jury selection service. My concern is that we have to be so circumspect with respect to what is given to juries. I recall being in court and a diligent jury foreman returned - in terms of the gender aspect, our legislative requirement to use of the word "foreman" has yet to be replaced by "foreperson" - with a special request to a very well-known trial judge, the late Mr. Justice Paul Carney, which was that the jury be sent 12 copies of a particular page related to the final interaction in a cross-examination of a witness. I am sure similar requests were made of other judges.He was worried about that so, instead, he read out the exchange of dialogue they had requested rather than give them physical possession of it.

In respect of sharing documentation with juries, there is also the question of timing. This might come down to the judge. However, should we not release the opening and the closing speeches at the exact same time if it is a long trial, or does the opening speech lie there permanently on a jury table for several weeks before they get sight of the closing speech?

The Bill refers to audio recordings or written transcripts. There is a level of discretion here that might have to be narrowed down. If it is going to be audio for the opening, ought it not be audio for the closing? I want a radical overhaul of the courts, as I said, including video and audio recording for the purposes of student law research. Despite that, I would prefer the cold print to go to the jury rather than tape recordings of the voices of counsel, because the print stands up whereas different styles and tones may be used by barristers - I am thinking of Seán MacBride and how he might sound against someone else. I am conscious that it will all come down to the inherent jurisdiction of the trial judge. I just want to flag those issues.