Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Apr 1978

Vol. 305 No. 11

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rules of Evidence.

31.

asked the Minister for Justice if he is satisfied with the present rules of evidence obtaining in the hearing of rape cases; if he accepts that there is need for a change to protect the victims giving evidence in such cases; and, if so, the proposals he has in this regard.

This is one of a number of questions put down by the Deputy in which he asks what views I have on some aspect of the present law or, in the event that I think the law should be changed, what proposals I have to make in that regard. While such questions have from time to time been put in the past and have been replied to on an ad hoc basis it seems necessary at this point to make a general comment. It would be impossible for me to undertake to give, by way of reply to parliamentary questions, my views on the merits or demerits of any particular legal provision on which a Deputy might decide to seek comment. The impossibility of my doing so will be apparent when it is realised that the range of questions that could be put to me as Minister for Justice could extend to any and every aspect of the entire criminal law and not only that but also to any and every aspect of major areas of the civil law. A review of any area of law is too complex a matter to permit of its being dealt with in this way and that would be the case even if replies to parliamentary questions were not liable to having to be prepared with only a few days' notice.

Furthermore, even if I were satisfied that legal changes were feasible and desirable in a particular area, I could not undertake to indicate at Question Time what specific legislative proposals I might have. Proposals to change the law can be introduced by me only as a Government-sponsored Bill and it is by the publication of a Bill that the specific legislative proposals of the Government are publicised. If, in a particular case where a decision in principle has been made by the Government, the Government think that it is appropriate to make an advance announcement, such an announcement is made. A recent example was the prohibition on the creation of future ground rents.

As this is the first occasion on which I have made these points I am prepared to accept that they need not be applied rigidly to the specific matter raised in the present question. I would therefore like to say that I am of course aware of the fact that victims of rape giving evidence in court find it very distressing even to give direct evidence and still more so to be subjected to cross-examination. I am also aware that such cross-examination may at times extend to matters which would seem to have little relevance in most cases to the credibility of the witness, though of course such a cross-examination may rebound on the defendant if either the jury or the judge take the view that it was unjustified.

I am very sympathetically disposed towards doing anything that can properly be done to reduce the extent to which victims of rape are subjected to unfair cross-examination, but I am at the same time aware that there are problems inherent in any moves to restrict in any substantial way the right of cross-examination on what is an exceptionally serious charge. Those and some other related matters have to be considered very, very carefully and this will be done as soon as possible. I understand that the Council for the Status of Women have appointed a committee to examine the problems involved and to make suggestions.

Do I gather from the first part of the Minister's reply that he is not prepared to even consider questions relevant to individual aspects of law reform?

No, the Deputy may not gather that from what I said. I am quite prepared to consider them. I have explained the difficulties I experience in replying in full, much as I would like to reply in full, to the type of question tabled by the Deputy.

Am I to take it the Minister agrees the law is in need of reform in many areas but this cannot be done on a comprehensive basis but has to be done by dealing with particular aspects of it?

I accept that.

On that basis does the Minister not accept it is proper to have these individual matters raised and discussed and views expressed on them from time to time?

I am very much aware of the right every Member has to raise any particular matter here at Question Time and I shall endeavour at all times to answer the questions raised as fully as I possibly can. Here, however, there are difficulties and, while I recognise there is need for law reform and of a careful examination of some aspects of the law, the Deputy, as a practising lawyer, should be one of the first to see my difficulty.

Is the Minister aware of the proposed changes under discussion in the UK and does the Minister agree the ordeal the innocent victim has to undergo can be of a traumatic nature.

I would refer the Deputy to that part of my reply where I dealt specifically with the cross-examination of the victim.

Subject to ensuring the defendant has a full and fair trial before a jury of his peers, does the Minister agree every step should be taken to reduce the ordeal the victim undergoes to a minimum?

I am very well aware of the problem and I have told the Deputy what the difficulties are as far as the accused is concerned. As of now, I am not in a position to say what the Government may instruct me to do.

I take it that the matter will not be neglected?

The Deputy can be assured of that.

Does the Minister accept that because of the difficulties associated with the ordeal innocent victims have to undergo, not alone in this country but in other countries, there is now a growing practice not to report such trials?

I am so aware and I am aware of the practice here. I understand the ordeal but the matter is extremely complex and it is one requiring very, very careful consideration.

May I take it the Minister will give the matter consideration?

Quite definitely.

Do I take it that, despite the Minister's sympathy with the victims, and accepting rape is on the increase, there are no specific proposals to alleviate the problems of such victims?

The Deputy may not take that from my reply.

Do I interpret the Minister correctly as saying that what he is concerned about is if some Member of this House, such as Deputy O'Keeffe or Deputy Quinn——

Or Deputy Briscoe.

Or Deputy Briscoe, or Deputy Bruton was charged with rape, that defendant should be able adequately to defend himself if he were wrongly accused? While everyone here has absolute sympathy with the victims, is not the difficulty in relation to cross-examination the fact that a full inquiry must be made into all the circumstances and am I correct in interpreting the Minister as saying that a person charged with rape should also have the full protection of the law?

This is repetition.

It is an extremely complex matter requiring very careful consideration.

Top
Share