Seanad debates

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motion

 

7:00 am

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 1st July, 2011 and ending on 29th June, 2012.

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of the motion is to provide for the continuation in operation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 for a further period of one year from 1 July. One of the most important traits of a democratic society is a justice system that operates free from interference by anyone seeking to wrongfully influence outcomes. The criminal justice system is made up not only of judges and lawyers but also by the participation of citizens, whether as witnesses or jurors. It is this latter role which is so central and essential to our idea of a trial by a jury of one's peers. There is nothing that can be considered more insidious than the targeting of those citizens who are prepared to put themselves at the service of the public by serving as jurors with a view to influencing the outcome of criminal proceedings. That is the reality we must face and a matter that we, as legislators, must resolve.

I know that Members of this House feel as I do that trial by jury must be preserved to the greatest possible extent. However, none of us can be blind to the threat posed to the criminal process by individuals, terrorist groups and organised criminal groups which seek to intimidate jurors or potential jurors. Their aim is to subvert the criminal justice system. We cannot allow that to happen. Therefore, we must take measures to prevent this interference. It is a sad fact that to do so we have to make the decision that trial by jury is not appropriate in certain limited circumstances. I emphasise the point that section 8 of the 2009 Act is aimed at particular types of cases and that the centrality of jury trial to our system remains intact.

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 and the measures contained in it were put in place by the Oireachtas to take further action to address the increasing levels of violence by gangs involved in organised crime. Although the measures were aimed, in particular, at those who directed the activities of these criminal gangs, given the nature of organised crime, it is also essential to target those who participate in these activities. The Act primarily provided for the trial of organised crime offences in the Special Criminal Court, unless the Director of Public Prosecutions otherwise directed. The creation of a new offence of directing or controlling a criminal organisation and an increase in the maximum penalty for the offence of participation or involvement in organised crime are caught with regard to all organised crime offences to be able to draw inferences from a failure to answer questions or to account for movements, actions, activities or associations, with an increase in the penalty for the intimidation of a witness or juror from ten to 15 years imprisonment.

It is the view of the Garda authorities that these provisions are indispensable to them in tackling organised crime. A large number of arrests have been made under these provisions and charges are being pursued against a number of people. I would be less than frank if I do not say to the House that useful as the provisions are, there will be disappointment that they have not proved to be of greater benefit in tackling the death and destruction caused by criminal gangs. That is why I have asked my Department to review them to see if there are any further measures we can take.

Section 8 of the 2009 Act is the subject of this resolution which is aimed at ensuring organised criminal gangs cannot interfere with the court process to influence the outcome of cases. For this purpose, the section declares that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, the preservation of public peace and order in relation to certain organised crime offences under Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, as amended. I will detail these offences for the House.

The offences are deemed to be scheduled offences for the purpose of Part 5 of the Offences against the State Act 1939. This means that they will be tried in the Special Criminal Court. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions may still exercise his power to direct that offences should be tried in the ordinary courts.

Section 8(4) provides that the section shall cease to be in operation, unless a resolution has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas resolving that it should continue in operation for a period to be determined by the Oireachtas. Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann passed such resolutions on 29 June 2010 to continue the operation of the section until 30 June 2011.

Section 8(6) provides that before a resolution to continue the section in operation is tabled, the Minister shall prepare a report which shall be laid before both Houses on the operation of the Act in the period under report. I laid such a report before both Houses on 14 June.

Section 8 of the 2009 Act refers to four particular offences which are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, as amended. They are section 71A, the offence of directing a criminal organisation which carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment. This offence was inserted by section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. It is intended to target those who direct the activities of organised criminal gangs. However, it is aimed not just at those who are in a leadership position in the gangs but also at those who are further down the food chain, so to speak, at all levels of the gangs. The offence carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment.

Section 72 is the offence of participating in or contributing to the activities of a criminal organisation in order to enhance gangs' ability to commit a serious offence or facilitate the organisation in committing serious offences. This offence was inserted by section 6 of the 2009 Act and carries a penalty of a fine and-or up to 15 years imprisonment.

Section 73 is the offence of committing an offence for a criminal organisation. The maximum penalty for this offence was increased from ten to 15 years imprisonment by section 10 of the 2009 Act. Section 76 provides for liability for offences under Part 7 of the 2006 Act where they are committed by corporate bodies, their members, directors and managers.

Senators will be well aware of the ongoing threat which organised crime presents to society. There are a number of criminal gangs in the State which continue to engage in very serious crimes. The unfortunate fact is that there is plenty of evidence of the involvement of these gangs in murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug smuggling, counterfeiting and other serious offences. There is also no doubt about their willingness to engage in the most serious violence to protect their interests and ensure they can continue their activities.

I take the opportunity to praise the Garda Síochána for its ongoing efforts in tackling these criminal gangs. It continues to deploy considerable operational resources in a number of operational approaches to tackling organised and serious crime, including a multi-agency approach and the deployment of intelligence-led targeted operations. The primary role of the Garda organised crime unit is to target organised criminal gangs in conjunction with other national units such as the emergency response unit, the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation and the Criminal Assets Bureau. These units are working collaboratively. They have had and continue to have success in disrupting criminal gangs.

Senators will know there have been a number of significant arrests and seizures of significant quantities of drugs in February, March and April as part of ongoing operations being undertaken by the Garda authorities with the co-operation of the customs service. Drugs to the value of over €750,000 were seized in March during an operation in Slane, County Meath. During another operation in April near Enfield in the same county, almost €1 million worth of heroin was seized. Gardaí made arrests in these and many other operations and charges are being brought. The nature of organised crime means that the process of investigation and prosecution can be lengthy and difficult, particularly in light of the power criminal gangs hold over the people involved with them.

The report I have laid before the House is based on information provided to me by the Garda authorities. It shows that section 8, which is the subject of this resolution, has not been used in the period under report, but the related sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 have been used by the Garda on 72 occasions. These arrests have resulted in four people being charged with offences contrary to section 71A - directing a criminal organisation - and section 72 - participating in or contributing to the activities of a criminal organisation. These arrests have resulted in other charges, relating to firearms offences, the sale and supply of controlled drugs, robbery, aggravated burglary and other serious offences, being proffered. Although there have been many arrests under the relevant sections of the Act, no cases have come before the Special Criminal Court to date. This does not invalidate the reasoning for having such a provision available for use when the circumstances require it.

As I have said, the Garda authorities are clear in their view that the provisions of the 2009 Act are indispensable in the fight against organised crime. The Garda authorities consider it is of paramount importance that the relevant provisions of the Act be extended for a further period. In matters of this nature, I must have the utmost regard to the views of the Garda authorities. It is absolutely essential to ensure gardaí have at their disposal the best possible range of powers to face and tackle these dangerous criminal gangs. The Garda authorities devote considerable resources from across the Garda organisation to their efforts to tackle organised crime. The Garda Commissioner has made it clear time and again that there will be no let-up in the action being taken against these gangs. He has my full support and that of the Government for his approach. In recent years, the Oireachtas has legislated for a comprehensive programme of criminal law reform to assist in combating organised and serious crime. This legislation is making a significant contribution to tackling this type of crime. I will keep under review the question of whether any improvements could be made to the overall legislative package in this area to render it more effective. As I indicated earlier, I have asked for a specific review of the provisions of the 2009 Act. I am sure Senators will agree that as legislators, we have a duty to make the most effective legal powers available to the Garda, the prosecution authorities and the courts to deal with criminal gangs that cause so much harm to society.

We need to make it clear that those who are deeply involved in organised crime are desperate and will stop at nothing to avoid being brought to account for their crimes. Extreme violence and brutal intimidation are a way of life for these thugs. They have no regard for society or the law. We all have a duty to make sure the criminal justice system can hold sway over them. To that end, we must ensure that in the most serious of cases, where jury intimidation is a real possibility, the law has the means available to it to bring these criminals to account. This provision is a departure from the right to trial by jury in the normal course of law. In the circumstances, however, I believe this is a justified and measured limitation of that right. On balance, I consider that the period of time for which I propose to renew this section is proportionate. The 2009 Act provided for an original period of one year for the provision to be in operation before its continuance in operation should be reconsidered. The period that is now proposed, which will run from the current expiry date to 29 June 2012, corresponds to that. If it is proposed to continue the operation of the provision after that date, of course the Oireachtas will have to consider the matter again. I commend the resolution to the House.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. As Fianna Fáil spokesman on justice, I wish to confirm my party's total support for this provision. It is a reflection of the times we live in that our legal and criminal justice system has had to be amended to provide for trials of organised crime offences to be held in a Special Criminal Court. As the Minister said in his speech, the normal process of trial by jury does not apply under these arrangements. There are very good reasons for that. The Minister mentioned that this is relatively new legislation. I do not think the fruits of what the Legislature intended when it passed the legislation in question have been seen on the streets to date. I expect that they will be evident soon. I am not looking forward to that, but the reality is that it is necessary. In parts of Dublin and particularly in Limerick, trials have collapsed as a result of intimidation of jurors, witnesses, etc. These extreme measures were introduced because this has become a relatively regular occurrence, unfortunately. There is no doubt that the Al Capone scenario we saw in Limerick over a 15-year period has abated. Many of the serious criminals in that city are behind bars, thanks to the vigilance and constant surveillance of the Garda. The Garda authorities have enjoyed some success, albeit perhaps not as a direct result of this legislation.

Like the Minister, I would like to compliment the Garda on its tremendous fight against crime. The Minister mentioned a couple of successful operations that resulted from intelligence-led investigations. The operations in question, in Slane and in Enfield, are to be commended. I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude for the apprehension of an armed gang in Kill recently. I do not want to say much about the matter because it is sub judice. A group of armed men were traversing the streets of a relatively quiet country town between 1 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. They were not out for a midnight ride with Paul Revere. They were not out "gallivanting around" the country, to use the late Brian Lenihan's phrase. They had a serious criminal intent in mind. They may have been planning some sort of tiger kidnapping or some other criminal activity. They were quite heavily armed. The Garda must be complimented for apprehending them. I welcome that. The citizens of this country can sleep a little easier in the realisation that a powerful branch of the Garda - the emergency response unit - is working with the Criminal Assets Bureau and other bodies to ensure they are properly protected.

There is no doubt that the legislation we are discussing is severe. These provisions are extreme. The Minister for Justice and Equality is required to come before the House on an annual basis. If he does not do so, these provisions will lapse. I welcome the statement of intent on the part of the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to the effect that this legislation will be strengthened if it transpires that it is not strong enough to deal with armed criminals and drug lords. It is difficult to envisage how that could be done if it is deemed necessary. The Minister's intention is to ensure law-abiding citizens are protected. He wants the streets of Dublin, Limerick and Cork, not to mention our country lanes, to be more secure and more peaceful for normal law-abiding citizens. Any measure he is prepared to introduce to that end will receive my full support, if necessary. The Minister's speech covered all of these matters comprehensively. I endorse what he said, by and large. I will conclude by stating categorically that along with my Fianna Fáil colleagues, I fully support the Minister's decision to continue this severe and draconian provision.

Photo of Paul BradfordPaul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Shatter, back to the House, his second time in a 24-hour period. He is before us to seek the renewal of what one must describe as rather stringent and almost draconian legislation. These times, from a criminal gang point of view, mean that we have little option but to accede to the Minister's request.

We had a substantive debate in the House on the original legislation, if I recall, in late 2008 or early 2009. The backdrop to that debate was what appeared at the time to be a significant increase in serious crime throughout the country and there was almost public hysteria about the fact that the Garda and the authorities seemed almost powerless to deal with the situation, in particular, with criminal gangs and drug gangs which appeared to be causing considerable destruction throughout the country. We had a substantive debate on the introduction of this legislation with then Minister, Dermot Ahern, and on the Fine Gael side of the House on that occasion was Senator Regan. Senator O'Donovan would have been contributing for Fianna Fáil. The merits and demerits of the legislation were debated in great deal at that stage. We all had to recognise, as is our duty, that we must always guard personal and civil liberties, but the case made then, which I think is being made by the Minister this evening, was that certain crimes and certain criminal elements are almost beyond the course of normal law and law-abiding mechanisms and this type of legislation needs to be put in place. I certainly support the retention of section 8 of the Act.

I note the Minister stated that people may be a little disappointed that we do not appear to have a clearer picture of the success to date of the broader elements of the Act, but progress can take time and cases can take a long time to run through the system. The message we are getting from the Garda Síochána is that it needs the retention of these measures. I think we have no choice but to come down on that side of the equation. To assure ourselves of the necessity of what we are doing here, we would want the clearest possible picture from a statistical perspective of the success of the Act and of section 8 which we are reinstating. It may be possible to give us some more detail from a statistical perspective of the numbers of cases and other such matters. Perhaps when the Minister has an opportunity to do so, he might present those figures to the House for consideration.

As the Minister pointed out, the powers of section 8 are quite severe. They are not the type of powers that he or many of us would like to be introducing, but the circumstances of 2008-2009, which, to use that awful phrase from another place, really have not gone away, leave us with little alternative. Communities throughout the country and not only in the greater urban areas have become victims, in particular to drug gangs and the resultant, often violent, robberies. Sadly, tackling these criminal elements, in particular the leaders of these gangs who are benefiting significantly in a financial sense from the resultant human misery, requires the reinstatement of these measures.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. Perhaps he would expand further, either in his response or at some stage in the near future by way of written correspondence, on the statistical evidence of which his Department is aware and which proves that this measure needs to be retained. We do not take these measures lightly. As Members of the Oireachtas, we have a broad duty to guard and protect the civil and human rights of every citizen of this country. I suppose the greatest civil and human right is the right to life. Others are the right not to be attacked and the right to be safe in one's home, street and community. Sadly, these measures are required to protect and vindicate those rights in this current difficult time of criminal gangs. I support the Minister's resolution.

8:00 am

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am glad to hear he is conducting a review of the provisions of the 2009 Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act. That is a useful announcement. I hope it will be a comprehensive review and that, in particular, it will look at the necessity of this provision in section 8.

I begin by acknowledging, as the Minister and other speakers have, the real and substantial threat posed to ordinary citizens' lives and to the criminal justice system by organised crime, the immense crime that has been done by organised crime at many different levels and the enormous damage done, especially where witnesses and jurors are subject to intimidation, which, I note, was the motivation behind this provision.

In previous debates on related provisions, we referred to the dreadful murder of Mr. Roy Collins, and Senator O'Donovan referred to Limerick as a place where there has been serious concern about the intimidation of witnesses in criminal trials. These are immense harms which we are seeking to address.

However, I have profound concern about this provision. I regret to see us being asked to renew it for a further year. In 2009, when it was initially proposed and we debated it at length in this House, the Labour group opposed the section and, indeed, tabled an amendment to address our serious concern about it. I would ask the Minister to look again at the text of the amendment, to which I will refer, and the concerns, which we expressed then and which I would express again, to see, when he is conducting a review of the provisions overall, whether it is necessary to have this sweeping provision in section 8. Our objection to it relates to the broad sweeping nature of it. Other speakers have referred to it as draconian and, as the Minister stated, it marks a departure from the right to trial by jury.

I described it previously as potentially amounting to an admission by us of our defeat to criminal gangs that we are making a declaration that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice. The Irish Human Rights Commission made clear a similar objection in its observations on the Bill in 2009 when it stated that it considered that the developed system of criminal justice is capable of effectively confronting the problem of organised crime without resorting to a parallel criminal justice system that does not provide the accused with a right to trial by jury. Our concern about section 8 is that it marked the adoption of a parallel criminal justice system outside the realm of so-called subversive offences within which the Special Criminal Court already operates. We also felt it was unnecessary because the DPP has already got the power to refer non-scheduled offences to the Special Criminal Court. The then Minister argued that it was important to make a general provision in respect of organised crime.

I would ask the Minister to consider, during his more comprehensive review, whether this sweeping provision is necessary and to look at the amendment we put forward on behalf of the Labour group in 2009 which gave the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, the power to refer matters of organised crime to the Special Criminal Court but giving grounds for such referrals. Our amendment suggested that the DPP should be of opinion that there is a real and substantial risk that the jurors or potential jurors may be intimidated or put in fear. That, we felt, was a more focused way of dealing with the issue. Indeed, the Irish Human Rights Commission made clear also that there were alternative methods that could be used to protect juries and witnesses in criminal trials from intimidation rather than making a blanket provision such as this that denies the right to jury trial to those charged with certain offences.

One of the provisions I welcomed - I think the only one - in section 8 in 2009 was the fact that it would be subject to an annual review. In the previous debate held just before the Minister came to the House, we debated the role of the Seanad and how to make it more effective. One of the points many speakers highlighted was the need for the Seanad to retain a level of heightened legislative scrutiny over any legislation that came before us.

In the interests of acting as a forum where we can give that level of scrutiny to legislation, we must be clear that when provisions of this nature come before us for annual review, as in this case and as the provisions of the Offences against the State Act did yesterday, we must ensure we are not simply a rubber-stamping House. We must scrutinise the measures put before us and we must note in particular the information we are given. I agree with Senator Bradford that we need full information.

I note the Minister stated this provision has not been used in the past 12 months. I do not recall whether 12 months ago it had been used in the previous 12 months, although I am aware this is a relatively new provision, as others have said. I am aware the Garda has sought for its retention. If it is to be retained for a further 12 months in 12 months time, however, when the Minister comes to the House, and it has not been used within that further 12 month period, we must take a serious step towards changing the nature of section 8 to ensure we no longer have draconian measures in place unless we can be sure they are effective in the fight against organised crime.

Photo of David CullinaneDavid Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House for the second time in 24 hours, as Senator Bacik has acknowledged. I acknowledge the serious nature of organised crime in the State. The pain that organised crime causes for individuals, communities, families and those who are the victims of organised crime, gun and drug crime is severe. Disadvantaged areas suffer from a higher incidence of such crimes. However, this is no excuse nor can it be an excuse for abuses of human rights. We could, potentially, create further unjustified suffering and damage to families. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act is wide open to abuse. Each year, Senators and Deputies in the Dáil vote unquestioningly to reduce their own rights and undercut their right to a fair trial. I call on Senators to reflect on this. Senator Bacik referred to rubber-stamping legislation. Oireachtas Members have been rubber-stamping for far too long and that is wrong. We should reflect on the reality of what this does.

Often, there is a false dichotomy which underpins the argument for these powers to be extended and often it is repeated by those who support the extension of the powers. The argument holds that there are the rights of the criminal on the one hand and the rights of the victim on the other and it is about the difference between the two. I am entirely in favour of increasing the rights of the victim. However, people should not mistake the rights of the accused as anything else because the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That must be the basis for any criminal justice system.

When emergency powers are brought in, they are difficult to get rid of. Senator Bacik posed the question about the logic of extending this given how seldom and infrequently the powers have been used. This is a telling point when one reflects on how often the powers have been used, yet we are being asked to extend the powers for another year.

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act is the affirmation that the Special Criminal Court is a normal part of our legal system. It is a damning indictment of our system that we have an emergency court which was supposed to be set up to deal with emergencies but which has now become a normal or permanent feature of our criminal justice system.

I am somewhat familiar with the legal system, with the great potential that exists for miscarriages of justice and where the usual safeguards are applied poorly, compromised or dropped entirely. We are familiar with cases such as those of Dean Ryan, Meleady and Grogan, the DPP v. Pringle and, famously, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. The Act provides for the wholesale dropping of safeguards in respect of the right to silence and in terms of the right to a jury trial. This is anti-democratic, dangerous and corrodes the Minister's right and our right to a fair trial.

This is a human rights issue. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed under Article 38 of the Constitution and under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a growing consensus outside this Chamber that the Special Criminal Court should be done away with. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the UN Human Rights Committee have express concern at its continuing existence. As in another case yesterday, the report published by the Minister is grossly insufficient for the purposes of scrutiny. Not even the false rationale offered yesterday by the Minister that we are using the legislation often so it must be necessary could be offered up in this situation, as was pointed out earlier. That defence does not stand up to scrutiny.

No cases have been sent to the Special Criminal Court on foot of section 8. The section has been used 72 times in the past 12 months. Of these 72 cases, four have faced charges but none has come to the Special Criminal Court. There is limited utilisation and the rate of utilisation to charges is appalling, never mind convictions. Is this being used for trawling, for picking people up and questioning them as an information gathering exercise? I call on Members to reflect again on what we are being asked to do.

Senator Bacik referred to next year. If we arrive at a situation next year where again these powers have not been used extensively, if at all, then perhaps we should consider the matter in 12 months time. I see no reason we should do that or why we should surrender our rights. People are entitled to a fair trial by jury. This is a fundamental human rights issue. It should underpin the criminal justice system and justice must be at the heart of any criminal justice system. For this reason I oppose the extension and the proposal brought forward by the Minister.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call the Minister, I welcome the former Member, Jarlath McDonagh, from Galway to the Visitors Gallery.

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senators for their contributions and I thank the majority of Senators who spoke in support of this resolution. I do not believe this House should be a rubber stamp. It is correct that we have an opportunity to consider each year the workings of legislation such as the measure we are dealing with and the measures we discussed yesterday.

I cannot agree with Senator Cullinane's comments on the impact of this section on human rights. The ultimate issue with regard to human rights is the right to life and to go about one's business in a manner in which one is not interfered with. Unfortunately, there is organised crime and there are criminal gangs in this jurisdiction who are intent on murder and mayhem, who have no difficulty in seeking to intimidate either witnesses or jurors, if they have the facility to do so, and who are willing, as I mentioned in the House yesterday, to engage in open gang and gun warfare on our streets, in people's homes and in public houses.

It would be extremely naive of any of us as legislators to assume that if measures such as those being discussed today and yesterday were removed from the legislative architecture available, then in some way we would better protect human rights. In fact, it would amount to saying to certain victims who suffer trauma and tragedy in their lives as a consequence of the activities of criminal gangs and those engaged in organised crime that we are granting some of these individuals impunity. This is because those people would be free to take whatever actions they believe appropriate to undermine our courts system and criminal justice system.

The provision seeks to counteract those who pose this type of threat and who are willing to subvert the State and the courts system as we would wish to see it operate. The ideal situation in the criminal law area is to have a judge, jury and no need for special courts. However, the special courts have proved their importance over the years by ensuring trials can take place in circumstances in which juries cannot be intimidated. They are essential so that justice can truly be done and the human rights of victims can be protected. We have a criminal justice system which presumes the accused is innocent until proved guilty, and the Special Criminal Court has the full procedural panoply of provisions necessary to guarantee that trials take place in an appropriate and proper manner. The appellate system copperfastens the guarantee that justice will be fully and properly done.

It is important that we recognise the reality of what confronts our society and the Garda, and the difficulties that can arise in facilitating trials within the normal courts system. I appreciate that it is important that we monitor how this provision is utilised and that we ensure it is effective. If it turns out that it is not effective and is not being utilised, clearly it cannot then be alleged that it is interfering with anyone's human rights. We need a provision which ensures the protection necessary to guarantee the proper administration of justice in the criminal law area so that those who have committed crimes are brought to book, that prosecutions can fully and properly take place and that court decisions can be made.

Senator Bacik spoke about the original approach of the Labour Party in regard to the measure and I acknowledge her suggestion regarding the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, in the context of the history of this provision, I do not accept that anything particular arises in that context. Nevertheless, I have an open mind on these issues. It is important that we see how the provision works in the next 12 months and whether it facilitates the conduct of trials in safe circumstances in which people are brought to justice. We must see whether it genuinely contributes to the administration of justice. If it does not, we will have to return to it and address the issue. However, it is important to keep the provision in place and that the resolution is supported. I thank the Senators who have contributed to the debate, particularly those who expressed their support for the motion.

Question put.

Senators:

Vótáil.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?

Senators David Cullinane, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Kathryn Reilly rose.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 70 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the journal of the proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.