asked the Minister for Justice if he will consider amending our criminal justice legislation so that in a case where an accused person pleads guilty to murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, the court shall be required to hear psychiatric evidence as to the mental state of the accused.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Criminal Justice Legislation.
1.
, Limerick East): Let me say at the outset that, while I readily accept that this question is entirely legitimate, it is necessary for me to be particularly careful about anything I might say in present circumstances where it seems inescapable that the question and my answer will be linked in the public mind with a very recent case that in certain major respects is still sub judice.
My attitude is that, as a matter of principle, I am prepared to consider any proposal that is not clearly misconceived but, as far as the particular proposal in the question is concerned, the position is that the rights and interests of a person charged with murder are already protected by elaborate safeguards and I have no reason to believe that they are in any way insufficient. If, however, the Deputy wants to make a case that those safeguards, taken together, are insufficient, I suggest that he might send me a written statement of the arguments and I will have the matter further examined. It is clear that, especially in the situation that exists at the moment relating to a particular case, I could not comment across the floor of the House at Question Time.
The question is simply asking the Minister if he will consider an amendment to the criminal justice legislation to ensure that in cases, as I say in the question, where an accused person pleads guilty to murder — I understand that there have been at least three such cases in the last two or three years — which carries the mandatory life sentence, legislation will be there to ensure that the court would be required to hear psychiatric evidence. Is it not a fact that in a recent case the defence attempted to introduce psychiatric evidence and it was not done?
To clarify the position, the question is quite in order and Deputy Mac Giolla's supplementary is practically 100 per cent in order as long as we keep away from the recent cases he spoke about. The necessity for that is that the case in which there are common facts with the case that has been disposed of stands adjourned until July and to that extent is obviously sub judice.
There is something also about legislation. On a point of order, is there not a rule that it is not in order to suggest legislation during Question Time? I am relying on my memory.
I think it is in order.
(Limerick East): Despite the assertion of the Deputy and his assurance that he does not link this question with any particular case, it is quite clear to me that my answer will be linked with a particular case in the public mind. Certain major respects in that case are sub judice. I am not prepared to comment further.
I do not think the question has been answered. I am asking the Minister for Justice if he considers, taking into account various cases over the past ten years, that amending legislation would be required in such cases to ensure that the court would hear psychiatric evidence. I understand that at present it is a matter for the judge in the case who is allowed latitude. Does the Minister consider in the interest of justice and the public seeing that justice is done, that amending legislation would be required to our criminal justice code?
(Limerick East): The Deputy may not have heard the main part of my answer. I said that the position is that the rights and interests of a person charged with murder are already protected by elaborate safeguards and I have no reason to believe that they are in any way insufficient. If, however, the Deputy wants to make a case that those safeguards, taken together, are insufficient. I suggest that he might send me a written statement of the arguments and I will have the matter further examined.
(Dún Laoghaire): Before the Minister answers the next question, would it be possible to get the sound here improved? People cannot hear what is going on. I notice in regard to Deputy Mac Giolla and other people at the back of the House that it is impossible to hear. Something will have to be done.
2.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will consider amending our criminal justice legislation so that in a case where a person pleads guilty to murder or other serious crimes, the court shall be required to hear an outline of evidence against the accused.
(Limerick East): As in my reply to the previous question, I think it necessary to refer to the fact that this question and answer can hardly but be linked in the public mind with a recent case and, moreover, a case that in certain major respects is still sub judice. Against that background, the only statement I think it appropriate to make is that I am considering the matter.
It is not satisfactory for the Minister to say in regard to that case which has been concluded that the matter is sub judice. Any reference I am making is to cases which have been completely concluded. I am not referring to any possible future cases of any nature and I do not think it satisfactory for the Minister to evade answering by referring to the possibility of other cases which may be sub judice.
A question, Deputy, please.
Does the Minister not regard it as unsatisfactory that cases should be disposed of without a public hearing of evidence in the case of serious crimes so that public anxiety would be allayed and the public would be aware, as they are entitled to be aware, of what occurred? I am asking again if the Minister considers that amending legislation should be brought in to ensure that in such cases a public hearing of the evidence is required.
Mr. Noonan
(Limerick): As I have already said, I am not prepared to make an extensive statement on this because of the circumstances, but I have said that I am considering the matter.
If I may——
I suggest to Deputy Mac Giolla that he will have another opportunity of raising this. He has let his views on the subject be known now and perhaps in some months time he can raise the matter again.
I have just one further supplementary. The Minister could take into consideration the fact that when information is not available rumours become rife and various interpretations can be put on a case by the public which bring the legal court into disrepute. In some cases it may have been considered by members of the public — or rumoured — that cover-ups are taking place.
The Chair would ask the Deputy to bear in mind that there is a particular delicacy about this case in so far as one leg of it, so to speak, has been disposed of and another part of it stands adjourned for a specified time.
That is a major part of the concern of the public.
Yes, but it is not in order to discuss cases in this House which are pending. That is the sub judice rule. Various views are held about the sub judice rule but I do not think that anybody could complain about the part of it which says that it is not in order to discuss in this House or in public cases which are pending, especially serious criminal cases.
I agree absolutely and I have no intention of doing that. I am merely trying to ensure that the Minister and this House consider whatever steps are necessary to ensure that their legal code and their practices of justice have credibility and the backing of the public.