Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am in disagreement with Senator Ward. I think the accused should be required to nail his or her colours to the mast as early as possible in a criminal process and not have a kind of each-way bet on seeing how the process will go and then seeing whether it would be a good idea to plead guilty. I emphasise that I am not being opportunistic in using this example but in the case, for instance, of a sexual offence against a woman, surely before the accused is given the right to start making preliminary applications in respect of what will happen at a trial, he or she should be asked at the very outset whether he or she is pleading guilty to the offence. Senator Ward states that asking accused persons to do so at an early stage is asking them to make a decision, effectively, against a contingency that their situation might improve if certain evidence were to be excluded. However, the corollary to that is that, for example, an accused could decide to have a go at trying out an application relating to previous sexual history before a judge before deciding whether to plead guilty. The woman would be put through the process of defending her right not to be interrogated on this issue and her legal aid lawyer would make submissions on it and then the accused could decide whether to plead guilty. In my respectful submission, this would be a retrograde step. If accused persons come into court with a legal aid lawyer, have read the book of evidence and know the prosecution case at its height, it would be counterproductive to allow them to keep their powder dry and then get involved in preliminary litigation about the nature of that case without ever having to say whether they are, in fact, accepting their guilt. I am against the acceptance of the amendment.