Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 430: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his plans to introduce new pretrial procedures to deal with admissibility of evidence to save overtime, and the time of jurors and the court. [15493/09]

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 433: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he will introduce procedures in order that the defence should provide the prosecution with a list of intended witnesses and put structures in place to ensure that the prosecution is on notice of the points of defence raised by the defence in advance. [15496/09]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 430 and 433 together.

The Deputy will be aware that the issues relating to admissibility and advance disclosure by the defence were examined by the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group, chaired by Dr. Gerard Hogan SC, which reported in March 2007 to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The question of the admissibility of certain evidence relates to determining what evidence can be presented on a basis agreed between the parties and the court. Maximising the possibilities for agreement on as much of the evidence as possible and at the earliest possible stage would clearly be of benefit not only in so far as it would reduce the trial time and the related costs, it would also, in many cases, reduce the difficulties a trial can evoke for the victim. It is therefore, without doubt, a worthwhile objective. Having considered the matter, the Review Group recommended that legislation be introduced to provide that admissibility issues should be determined prior to the swearing in of a jury. Its recommendation is being considered by my Department. I am also awaiting the outcome of the Law Reform Commission's review of the law of evidence, as part of its Third Programme of Law Reform.

In relation to advance disclosure by the defence, it is recognised that a considerable disparity exists between the obligations of the defence side when compared to those faced by the prosecution. As a general rule, the prosecution must set out precisely the case it will be seeking to present and the conclusions which it will attempt to prove. Apart from certain limited exceptions, the defence is not required to furnish any information. The exceptions to the rule relate to alibi evidence under Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, witness information required under the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and evidence regarding the mental state of the accused under Section 19 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.

The Review Group considered a range of options that would have extended the areas where advance disclosure by the defence would be required. It concluded that any extension of the present obligations should be limited to expert and technical reports and witness statements of experts which the defence intends to present as evidence.

It is my intention to give effect to this conclusion in the Criminal Procedure Bill 2009. The Bill was approved for drafting by the Government at the end of 2008. I expect to publish the Bill in this term. Meanwhile, a copy of the general scheme of the Bill is available from my Department's webpage.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 431: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his legislative plans which will give the courts greater discretion on the way trials are to be conducted and enable it to give directions as to document exchange and scheduling of witnesses. [15494/09]

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 432: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he will put in place a structure whereby the defence will accept certain kinds of technical evidence by certificate of gardaí unless they can show good reason why gardaí should have to be physically present in court; and when he will put in place a structure whereby technical evidence, particularly search warrants, are presumed to be valid unless contradictory evidence can be produced. [15495/09]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 431 and 432 together.

In general, courts have discretion, subject to the requirements of the administration of justice, as to the directions they may give in a particular case to enable a trial to be conducted expeditiously, including directions for exchange of documents. Moreover, case management regimes, for example, have been in operation in the High Court in the areas of commercial proceedings, family law proceedings and some other categories of litigation. I understand that, borrowing on the experience of those regimes, proposals to introduce case progression procedures in respect of further litigation categories in the High Court are currently being studied by the judiciary.

Last September I signed into law the Circuit Court Rules (Case Progression in Family Law Proceedings) 2008 which conferred County Registrars with important powers to assist in expediting family law proceedings in the Circuit Court. Those rules assign to County Registrars, through case progression hearings, the functions of overseeing preparation of family law cases, setting timetables for completion of pre-trial steps, generally monitoring the progress of the case, and making final arrangements for the trial.

The Third Programme of work of the Law Reform Commission includes a project on documentary evidence and technology. Documentary evidence is an essential element of nearly all litigation. This project will discuss the rules concerning proof of execution and authentication of documents, and consider the need for their modernisation. The project will also consider whether electronic evidence should be regulated as a separate category of evidence. My Department will give careful consideration to the findings of the Commission.

The amount of time potentially spent by Gardaí in court proceedings was noted in a recent report of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate. It also noted that within the Dublin Metropolitan Region a Court Presenter system is in place in the Dublin Metropolitan Court District and that outside the DMR the local District Officer is the Prosecuting Officer, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the majority of prosecutions before the District and Circuit Courts. The Inspectorate welcomed developments in the Court Presenter system which frees up significant Garda time from court duty. The Inspectorate has suggested that this scheme should be extended to all courts throughout the Dublin Metropolitan Region and I understand this recommendation is under consideration by the Garda authorities.

Question No. 433 answered with Question No. 430.