Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I suggest that already happens. It is already the case that when an accused goes to trial, it is open to him or her to challenge the evidence before the judge, in voir dire- in the absence of the jury - and to invite the judge to assess whether the evidence is appropriate to go before the jury. That two-step process, or the two bites of the cherry that Senator McDowell described, is a fundamental part of our system. We do not put evidence before a jury that is inappropriate, unsustainable in some way or prejudicial to a certain extent, given that any evidence the prosecution presents is likely to be prejudicial against the accused. That system is already in place.

We are trying to decouple the voir direhearing during a trial, which delays the trial in no uncertain times and discommodes all the actors involved, in order that we can do it in a much more time-efficient way in advance of the trial. Whether it is a month or a year in advance, it will mean that all those loose ends will have been tied up before getting to the trial. When the jury is empanelled and the accused is put into the charge of the jury, matters can then run smoothly and there will be much less disruption to the trial process once it has begun, meaning it will be less inconvenient to the jurors, the accused, the witnesses and the alleged injured parties.

I have no difficulty with that double bite at the cherry and the opportunity for the accused because that is exactly what happens already. We are just seeking to separate it in time.