Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 20: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, in view of the recent controversy surrounding the adjudged unconstitutional nature of provisions of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 he will instigate a full review of all current legislation pertaining to sexual offences; if he will introduce to the Houses of the Oireachtas a comprehensive reforming act in order to address any further shortcomings or constitutionally precarious provisions within the current statutory framework pertaining to sexual offences; the length of time he anticipates such a process would take to complete; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22007/06]

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 22: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will implement a system that would ensure that both his Department and the Attorney General's Office are fully briefed on potentially unconstitutional legislation on regular basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22201/06]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 37: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has intentions or plans to conduct an analysis of the communications structure between his Department and that of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions to identify the reason the recently successful Constitutional challenge to provisions of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 was not brought to his personal attention prior to judgement being handed down; the safeguards he will put in place to ensure that all potentially leading cases are closely monitored by his Department to ensure that required legislative amendments or introductions resulting from such cases can be anticipated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22006/06]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 48: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the mechanism he proposes to introduce to prevent a recurrence of the recent legal and constitutional crisis which allowed the release of prisoners serving time for serious offences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22200/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 20, 22, 37 and 48 together.

There is no doubt that recent events have highlighted communications issues between my Department and the Offices of the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor. An examination of communications within the Office of the Attorney General took place some years ago that resulted in some administrative changes in that Office and a further examination by an official from the Department of Finance is now due to take place. My Department will, of course, cooperate in every possible way with that examination and in implementing any new communications or consultation arrangements which may emerge from that examination.

Communications and recording of correspondence within my own Department are constantly kept under review to see if they can be improved. I am satisfied that on this occasion our office procedures were carried out correctly.

On 29 November 2002, my Department was informed in writing by the Chief State Solicitor's Office of an application to the High Court seeking to challenge certain provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935, (The "C.C." proceedings). An official promptly phoned the Chief State Solicitor's Office to ascertain whether they needed any response from the Department in relation to the application. The answer was in the negative. In January 2003, the Chief State Solicitor's Office repeated in writing its undertaking to advise the Department of any development in the proceedings. No further communication was received in my Department from the Chief State Solicitor's Office or any other source concerning the "C.C." proceedings. Neither I nor my Department were notified of the hearing or outcome of the High Court case, which the State won, or the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

Following discussions in the matter with my officials I set up, in late 2004, a Criminal Justice Group comprising representatives from the main agencies working in the criminal justice sector. The Group has representatives from, among others, An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service, the Irish Prison Service, the Attorney General's Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The main function of the Group, which is chaired by the Secretary General of my Department, is to promote a co-ordinated and cohesive approach to criminal justice matters. This Group has met on 4 occasions since late 2004 and is scheduled to meet again in July. The Secretary General has advised me that the group will meet more frequently from now on.

I have been advised by the Secretary General of my Department that, from now on, cases of litigation with constitutional and policy implications for the criminal justice system will be a standing item on every agenda of the Criminal Justice Group.

Furthermore, it is my intention to discuss with the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions the importance of putting in place agreed procedures for a consultation process between our three offices in relation to cases of litigation on constitutional and policy issues. This consultation process will be over and above the current consultation process provided for in statute between the AG and the DPP.

In response to the Supreme Court decision of 23 May 2006, I published the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 on 1 June 2006. It passed all stages in the Dáil and Seanad and was signed into law by the President on the following day.

I would emphasise that even had we been aware of the impending Supreme Court judgment, nothing could have been done which would have prevented the application to the High Court which resulted in the temporary release of one convicted sex offender. No legislation, even if rushed through the Oireachtas the same day, could have influenced subsequent events. It would not in any case have been practicable to rush in pre-prepared legislation as it is simply not possible to anticipate the terms of a Supreme Court decision, let alone the decision itself.