The Minister of State at the Department of Labour is in possession and has nine minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Larceny (Amendment) Bill, Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
I had all but completed my contribution the last evening and there is just one aspect of the Bill about which I want to say anything. On the last occasion I said that despite the very grandiose Long Title of the Bill it is a much more limited measure that one might believe. For example, despite its claims and pretentions to do all sorts of things relating to the law on robbery and burglary, the Bill does not address these subjects, good bad or indifferent, for a very good reason. That is, that the legislation in that area has already been amended.
There is one substantial area which the Bill does address, and it is an area of importance and those responsible for the Bill deserve credit for addressing themselves to this issue, and that is receiving stolen property. We are all aware that the level of larcenies, burglaries and robberies is appallingly high. The fact that there has been a reduction in the last year is welcome but we would all like to see that graph dip much more sharply. We all accept that one very effective way of getting after those engaged in larceny, burglary or robbery is to make it unprofitable for them to engage in that activity. A very effective way to do that is to make it difficult and unprofitable to engage in receiving stolen goods.
I agree with the premise behind the Bill that the law relating to receiving stolen property is quite inadequate. It is inadequate for a number of reasons: first, because it is complex; second, because it is based on the complex definition of stealing, section 2 of the Larceny Act; and, third, because of the obligation to establish that someone received the goods knowing them to have been stolen. Given the nature of Irish society and, in particular, given our economic links with Northern Ireland, it is very easy for someone found with goods which subsequently transpired to have been stolen, and even found with such goods in suspicious circumstances, to say he never knew they were stolen. Perhaps if pressed he might say he had his doubts but he never knew they were stolen. Under the present legislation that person might reasonably expect to be acquitted. I accept — and I take it this is the view of the draftsmen of this measure — that such an arrangement is unsatisfactory.
I mentioned Northern Ireland for this reason. Frequently the evidence that will be available to suggest improper acquisition of the goods will be the fact that the goods were acquired in unusual circumstances or at below market price. If one receives a fur coat for a price way below the market value in most situations people would be expected to start asking questions, but the fact that there is such a volume of cross-Border activity means that this person might say she thought the coat might have been smuggled or she knew there was a question mark over it but she never thought it was stolen. That is an unsatisfactory situation and must be addressed. But attempts to address this problem have been less than happy.
I commented earlier on the rather incongruous approach adopted by the draftsmen of copying the British legislation. It seems to be a peculiar way for someone who, I understand, holds himself out as being on the republican wing of a republican party, to simply take sections, lock stock and barrel from a British statute and insert them into a very old statute which operates here. It is a particularly odd way to proceed given the fact that the British Act was passed in 1968 and the comparable legislation in Northern Ireland was enacted in 1969. A very substantial volume of case law has built up on how that section has been interpreted by the British and Northern Ireland courts. The courts of both jurisdictions would be of persuasive authority were we to accept the suggestion of the draftsman to incorporate an identical provision. In those circumstances one might reasonably have expected the draftsman to have taken into account developments in the British and Northern Ireland courts given that they have been interpreting sections with the identical words we are now being asked to include in our legislation. But that has not been done and the problems, weaknesses and defects that have been identified have not been addressed.
There are a number of areas in which the approach adopted is inadequate. I have already said that our present legislation, with its requirement that one takes the goods knowing them to have been stolen, is not a happy one; but it is proposed to replace that with "knowing or believing". This is a step — no one can say other than that — but it is a very limited step because in many of the situations I was posing the person will have no positive belief that the goods were stolen. It may be that if he addressed himself to the question he might have good reason to believe they were stolen, but he may choose for good reason not to address the question one way or the other: he has no views on where the property came from and he does not have any interest in where it came from. That, I suggest, is probably the most common state of mind of those who find themselves acquiring stolen property.
The other area in which the legislation seems inadequate is where it purports to deal with the offence of receiving stolen property without dealing with the basic offence of stealing. If we do not address that question, then everything else becomes a very unhappy attempt to shore up what is already a leaking vessel. The draftsman was obviously aware of that and he had a second bite at it in the latter half of section 4; but the attempt to recover from the failure to address the basic definition of theft and larceny fails miserably.
In conclusion, this measure does not do what it purports to do. It is useful in so far as it focuses our attention on one inadequacy in our law, and that is the area relating to stolen goods. I welcome the indication of the Minister that he will legislate in this area. The experience we have gained already from the attempts to respond to burglaries and robberies indicates that what is required at this stage is a radical root and branch approach in the whole area of offences against property and that any attempt to tinker around with it will do more harm than good. While I am sure the motives of the Opposition in this case were admirable, I do not believe that what they propose represents any improvement in the capacity of the Garda Síochána to deal with this scourge. On that basis, I think the House should have little to do with it.
In the ten minutes I have been listening to the Minister of State he has contradicted himself on a number of occasions. I find it rather strange that a Minister of State in 1986 does not see the urgent need to improve a situation that has been allowed to continue for far too long and which has deteriorated at an alarming rate. It is silly for a Minister of State to condemn our party with our Republican tradition for taking some sections from an English Act. It is silly and childish in the extreme for a person who has been Minister of State for three years to make such a point. One expects more maturity from a person holding that position.
The Minister of State first accepted that what we were proposing was a limited step forward but he finished by saying our Bill would be of no use and would not help the Garda Síochána. Obviously he is even more out of touch with the situation than his own Minister. He comes from Dublin, a city where crime is rampant. He knows that the powers of the Garda Síochána are limited and he ignores the fact that our Bill is proposing some measures to rectify the situation.
The Minister of State agreed that there has been an alarming increase in larcenies. Any step, no matter how limited, will be welcomed by a suffering community. He also stated that the legislation was complex and he is right but that does not remove responsibility from him, his Minister or the Department to introduce the measure as a matter of urgency. I am sure that my colleague, Deputy Woods, would have no objection to amendments and improvements once the legislation has been put on the table of the House. For a Government to say they will do nothing in what is a move forward proves they are totally out of touch and do not know how to deal with the matter of stolen goods. Having listened to the spate of closures mentioned in the House today and to the budget last week and having regard to all the developments that have occurred recently, I suggest that the only growth industry that is allowed to flourish under this Government is that of stolen goods and dealing in stolen goods. I understand that in 1984 that industry was worth about £32 million.
The growth in the crime rate is a matter of much concern but the response of the Minister to our Bill which was introduced on the opening day of the Dáil session has been amazing and unbelievable. I do not know how he is so disinterested in doing anything to restore the confidence of the community and to thwart the perpetrators of burglaries, larcenies and those engaged in the disposal of stolen goods. I do not understand how he is prepared to sit back and allow this situation to continue. I do not understand how he can reject, and advance reasons for so doing, this measure. In truth, the only real reason for his objection is because the Bill has been introduced by Fianna Fáil in an effort to plug a serious gap in our legislation, one that is allowing unlimited dealing in stolen goods.
I do not know how the Minister can defend the present situation. I listened to his contribution in the House two weeks ago and it seemed to be a major departure from the person who tried so unsuccessfully to smear some Fianna Fáil colleagues a number of years ago. If he had applied the same energy and commitment to deal with the crime problem he would be remembered as somebody who made a worthwhile effort. His TV appearance at that time indicated a Minister full of verve and enthusiasm. He was going to make all the changes, he was going to clean up the system almost overnight but three years down the road the situation has deteriorated. The Minister tinkers around with the statistics. He tells us there has been a marginal decrease in indictable crime. He does this as a public relations exercise but I suggest that all of us here have responsibility to endeavour to prevent the criminals from perpetrating crimes in our community. This is a non-party political matter. The Minister loses credibility for himself and his Government every time he tries to justify marginal changes that may vary over the years. The truth is that our crime rate is far too high.
Some years ago the Minister was full of intentions and ideas but three years later he is seen as the most ineffective and unsuccessful holder of the office in modern times. The prison system is lying almost in shambles around him but yet he defends it with convoluted technical arguments. They would say in Cork that he engineered and organised the ignition keys in the JCB to have it ready to ease the way into the prison on Spike Island.
The Minister used technical arguments to show that this Bill is not adequate to curb the increase in the crime rate. I do not think either Deputy Woods or Deputy Hyland ever suggested that this Bill was so intended. It was intended to try to get rid of a loophole or an obvious flaw in the legislation relating to larceny and particularly relating to the handling of stolen goods. It would have been a major step forward. All the Minister or any other Member has to do is to talk to gardaí, particularly those operating in the major cities, who feel very weak because of the inadequacy of legislation—
The Chair is worried about the Deputy's reference to the JCB. I am sure there was nothing sinister in the remark. Did the Deputy make it in connection with the opening of the prison?
I was expecting the Chair to interrupt me because it is normal for me to be told I am out of order or that I have strayed from the matter under discussion. I read with interest the contributions of Deputy Woods, the Minister, Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Birmingham, Minister of State, on this Bill. They strayed on many issues and were not interrupted by the Chair.
All that I was concerned with was whether the Deputy was referring to the opening of the prison.
We departed from that a long time ago.
Not too long ago. I am taking it that the Deputy was referring to the opening of the prison.
I am not aware that there was an opening but there was a breakout.
I am referring to the physical opening of the prison. If the Deputy was referring to a breakout from the prison I would ask him to withdraw the reference.
What reference?
The reference that people in Cork were saying that the Minister——
I did not say that. You are splitting hairs, something you are making a habit of. I was subjected to something similar last week.
The Deputy's reference is too thin, as it were and I would ask him not to be nasty in dealing with the Chair.
The Chair is being provocative.
If the Deputy was alleging by innuendo that the Minister had something to do with the breakout from the prison, he is behaving scandalously.
I repeated what was being said in Cork.
This is unworthy of the Deputy.
I thought I would be entitled to quote what my constituents were saying just as you would be entitled to quote something your constituents might say.
I would ask the Deputy to dissociate himself from the remark.
I think you are being unreasonable.
I do not think so. The Deputy should think about what he has said. The remark should not have been made.
I merely quoted what I had heard in Cork.
At best the Deputy is reducing the standard of debate to a very low level.
I was excluded from the debate on the budget here last week though my name had been taken by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The Chair must pass from one side of the House to the other so I would ask the Deputy to check on the allegation he is making.
The Chair might check on the list that was read by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I am asking the Deputy to dissociate himself from the allegation he has made.
I did not make any allegation against the Minister.
This is unworthy of the Deputy. It is reducing the debate to a very low level.
That is an exaggeration. I have heard many debates here during my 14 years as a Deputy and these were from all sides of the House——
The Chair cannot think of anything worse than for a Deputy, by innuendo, to suggest that a Minister for Justice was a party to a breakout from prison.
I am sure you will realise that I was not very serious in making that suggestion. I merely repeated something I had heard quoted in Cork.
If it is the wish of the Deputy to be put out of the House, I shall not oblige him.
I have no wish to be asked to leave the House. It would be disgraceful of you to do that, though I should not be surprised.
Is that the extent of the Deputy's assessment of decency?
The Chair appears to be in very bad humour.
I am endeavouring to steer the House towards decent lines.
The area of crime is now our only growth industry. The expertise and technological development applied by the criminals are incredibly good and I fear that our administration is not moving at a pace sufficient to be able to cope with what is happening. In my neighbourhood the number of larcenies, break-ins and burglaries has increased at a very fast pace. The people are very concerned at this development. The measure before us represents a very logical means of dealing with the problem. Obviously, the Bill is open to amendment and improvement by way of rendering it more effective in the interests of the community, but for the Government to take no action is a very serious failure on their part.
The Judiciary, the Garda and members of the legal profession have been pointing for a long time to the anomalies and inadequacies of legislation relating to stolen goods. The estimate in respect of stolen goods would be about £32 million for 1984. That is on the basis of the estimate of the value of stolen goods for that year being £34.5 million while stolen goods recovered amounted to only £2.5 million. In other words, stolen goods to the value of £32 million were put into circulation and at least some of those goods were sold somewhere. It all adds up to an extensive business. Despite this the Minister buries his head in the sand and says that for technical reasons he cannot accept the measure we are proposing. Someone must cut the red tape. Before the midnight hour is reached in terms of this problem that red tape must be cut.
The Criminal Justice Act of 1984 was defended strongly by the Minister and was put forward as a cure for the whole problem, but it is far from that. Section 16 of that Act deals specifically with withholding information regarding stolen property and so on. Subsection (1) of the section reads:
Where a member of the Garda Síochána—
(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence consisting of the stealing, fraudulent conversion, embezzlement or unlawful obtaining or receiving of money or other property has been committed,
(b) finds any person in possession of any property,
(c) has reasonable grounds for believing that the property referred to in paragraph (b) includes, or may include, the property referred to in paragraph (a) or, part of it, or the whole or any part of the proceeds of that property or part, and
(d) informs that person of his belief...
When a member of the Garda has done all that, he may require the person to give an account of how he came into possession of the property. That is fine so far. Subsection (2) reads:
If that person fails or refuses, without reasonable excuse, to give such account or gives information that he knows to be false or misleading, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both.
That is fine so far as it goes. If the person fails or refuses to give the information the section takes care of him. Subsection (3) reads:
Subsection (2) shall not have effect unless the accused when required to give the account was told in ordinary language by the member of the Garda Síochána what the effect of the failure or refusal might be.
Subsection (4) is very interesting. It undermines totally the Garda position and reads:
Any information given by a person in compliance with a requirement under subsection (1) shall not be admissible in evidence against that person or his spouse in any proceedings, civil or criminal, other than proceedings for an offence under subsection (2).
That means in effect that if a garda apprehends, say, John Murphy who is in possession of a number of transistors, television sets, videos or other goods and if he says that he procured the goods from Gene Fitzgerald who stole them from a certain house, the garda is powerless to take any action. That is the anomalous situation the Minister must face up to, but he has defended his failure in this area by saying that the Criminal Justice Act covers that sort of situation.
That is not correct. The person could be charged with stealing those goods.
It is correct. His own statements cannot be used against him.
Except for one of the offences mentioned in subsection (2) and receiving is one of those.
I shall not enter into an argument with the Deputy because there is not much time remaining at my disposal but he may check the matter with the Garda, for instance. They are very concerned about this position. If the person who is stopped by the Garda does not give the information requested of him, he has no problem and if he volunteers the information the Garda cannot use that in evidence against him.
I referred to the Minister claiming credit for tinkering around with the minimal reduction in the crime rate and trying to win some kudos for that. Crime is on the increase. The receiving of stolen goods is a growing industry. There would have been some merit in the Minister saying to Deputy Woods that there are some inadequacies in the Bill, that some changes would have to be made to it, that these changes would be made and the necessary legislation introduced as quickly as possible. Of course he has not said that. He has said that in his own time he will introduce legislation, but meanwhile the position continues to deteriorate. The people deserve better than a Minister who shows no concern for a matter which is their constant worry. I can understand Deputy Taylor being concerned about this because he lives in a suburban area which must be suffering severely.
In Cork joy riding is once again on the increase and causing serious injury and damage to property. The Cork Examiner reported on Friday a horror crash between a van in which a husband and wife were travelling and a car driven by joy-riders. All parties were injured and one of the boys died today. We have to convey sympathy to his people but it is a tragedy that these things are allowed to continue. The Garda are doing their job but they need support. We talk about the growth of technology. Criminals are very good at using updated technological equipment and the disposal of stolen goods has become more slick and successful.
Any Member referring to the Garda this week should not forget their football team who travelled to Derry last Sunday. I was extremely impressed that these ambassadors acquitted themselves so well. It was great to see a Deputy Garda Commissioner being interviewed on the playing field in Derry city. Media coverage was positive and very good.
Under the 1916 Larceny Act it is an offence to receive stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, but it is not an offence to receive stolen property believeing it to have been stolen. The Minister of State made much play about that point in our Bill, saying it was confusing still further an already complex position. He did admit, however, that it is a limited step. I would say it is a bit more than that and certainly a move in the right direction.
In 1984 the stolen goods business amounted to £32 million and it has been growing. Not only is it wrong to allow people to deal in stolen property but is is also doing great harm to legitimate traders. The sum I have mentioned is a substantial turnover in itself and part of it might make the difference between the viability and the non-viability of an enterprise.
All of us in this House are aware of neighbours who have been robbed on more than one occasion of electrical goods, videos, televisions, radios and personal belongings. We wonder where all these goods disappeared. Any stopping of the flow of stolen goods is a positive step forward. It may not be the whole answer but we can tackle that in time as well. We must not stand back and do nothing. It must be remembered that criminals are as well versed in these Acts as Members of this House and the legal profession.
I regret any inference that the Minister for Justice was involved in a prison breakout. I did not mean that seriously. I merely quoted what was said in Cork but that was said jocosely too.
I am glad of that.
The crime rate in my city is increasing. The upturn in joyriding is a cause of concern since a second death has been caused by it since Christmas. This is a matter above party politics. Efforts to reduce the incidence of crime must be made on a united basis. Our citizens are suffering too much. They are afraid to leave their houses or to leave their cars. All this has given an impetus to the security industry but it cannot contain all the things that are happening. This Bill is fulfilling a national service. It should be supported. Cork is screaming for action and what applies to Cork applies to all our other cities.
I am not always negative in this House. The Minister has made a major contribution to improving the speed with which court cases are dealt with in Cork. Some of the progress received a setback recently when a number of courts were adjourned because of inconsistencies by a temporary district justice. Inconsistent fines were imposed and difficulties were experienced with the legal profession, but I am sure the Minister and his Department are capable of putting that matter right. Let us hope this temporary appointment will not slow down or disrupt a system which has improved.
The Minister knows the anomaly is there. He knows there is a need to close the door and that the 1984 Act has not done so. People throughout the country, but especially in the cities, need protection quickly. This loophole must be positively sealed off. If this measure does not go far enough, it will at least be a help. Section 30 was used recently in a case involving substantial malicious damages but the defendants were cleared and section 30 was not allowed to be used. It has to be tested at a higher level.
I appeal to the Minister to accept this Bill. He is welcome to amend it if he wishes. The community need action quickly.
The Opposition are to be congratulated in bringing forward a Private Members' Bill of this nature on a non-controversial subject. All of us in this House share the wish to bring the escalating crime figures under control and to reduce them. It must be appreciated that Private Members' time has to some extent been given over to this end by the Fianna Fáil Party. Indeed, I wish that more of Private Members' time would be made available to discuss issues such as criminal law and other branches of the law in need of reform. Having said that, in all honesty I do not feel that the Bill as it stands is capable of making anything more than a small, marginal contribution towards the reform of criminal law and would go no way at all in substance to meet the serious escalating problem with which we are faced, as Deputy Gene Fitzgerald pointed out. We all agree on that.
I would contend it is time that a major review or reform of the broad spectrum of the criminal law was undertaken. A piecemeal approach, picking out one or two individual offences, will not get us anywhere. We need a complete review. I do not see why the Law Reform Commission — after all they are the expert body charged, at great public expense, with keeping our law under review and suggesting reforms and proposals — should not be asked to look in particular at the field of the criminal law. In the main they have concentrated on other branches of the law, many of which do not have anything more than a marginal reference to the lives of ordinary people. It is an expensive body to maintain. They do very good work, carry out in-depth research and would have the time and resources to undertake the necessary reforms.
So far as the practice of crime is concerned, over the years since the Larceny Act of 1916 the position has changed very much. The basic nature of the offences of larceny and of receiving have not changed that much. There have been new types of crime that have entered the scene that warrant the particular attention of law reform — for example, such things as company frauds, frauds by company directors, frauds on people involved with companies, be they shareholders or people buying things from companies that liquidate, crimes of a fraudulent nature of that sort. Those criminal offences have not been updated in anyway. Massive crimes are committed against ordinary people who find themselves defrauded in company situations by company directors absconding, or milking companies of their assets and so on. There is also in this world of technology, as we have it now, a whole range of computer frauds involving computers and matters of that nature which were not in contemplation at all at the time that the Larceny Act was passed. It is time we carried out a review of the criminal law. I would ask the Minister to consider requesting the Law Reform Commission to examine the broad spectrum, to ascertain if we can improve the position in some substantial way that would be of real help.
Those who commit crime, particularly the kind of crimes that are within the contemplation of the provisions of this Bill, fall into at least two broad categories. There are those young people who become involved in break-ins, in joyriding, taking cars and careering around our cities causing danger to themselves and others. The second category would be formed of those professional criminals who have developed a high expertise in this field over the years. So far as those youngsters are concerned — and they present an increasing problem — that problem will not be tackled merely by amending measures of the criminal law, nor by increasing the penalties imposed by the criminal law. There is involved here a major social element that we must face up to. It is no good just bemoaning the fact that break-ins, smash-ins are on the increase, cars being taken and all that. That is all true but there is no sense in just wringing one's hands and complaining about it. One must go somewhat deeper and realise that the appalling increase in the unemployment of our young people is a major contributory factor in these criminal activities. As has been said, idle hands will soon be put to no good use, and that is what is happening. There is a crisis obtaining in so far as young people in the inner city areas and indeed outer suburbs are concerned. We must find ways of providing work for these young people. Their energies must be channelled in some direction. If they are not directed into normal useful work, using their brains and hands, then of necessity they will and have turned towards crime for the thrill, using their brains to some extent in break-ins, driving around in stolen cars and so on.
There is, therefore, a very big social element involved. I am afraid that successive Governments have been very lax in tackling this problem in any realistic way. We have all been too fond of the habit of sitting back, hoping that the economy will lift so that employment will be provided for these people and so that in turn they will not have to turn to crime. But that does not happen of its own accord, as has been shown time and time again. Governments do have a responsibility, if they want to tackle this crime problem, to ensure that work is provided for these youngsters. If such employment is provided I would forecast a dramatic reduction in the crime figures.
The suggestion has been advanced here by those who presented this Bill that its provisions represent some kind of panacea for the crime situation, that all we have to do is have Dáil and Seanad Éireann pass and adopt Deputy Woods' Bill, when there will be a dramatic turnaround in the crime figures, when these escalating figures that so frighten us, give us such cause for concern, will in some magical way dissipate or fade away into the background. I wish it were that easy. The problem is not that the law does not have at its disposal sufficient armouries in the legal system, a sufficient list of offences that could be availed of with which to charge people. That is not the problem at all. In the criminal law books there are offences galore. That is not the problem. Rather is it that there has been a failure to have a sufficiently high detection rate of the crimes that have been committed. That is the problem, not a lack of sufficient types of crime within which to bring a charge and obtain a conviction. Crimes are not being detected in sufficiently high numbers. Deputy Woods gave the relevant figures when speaking in introducing this Bill on 22 January last when, he said:
For instance, in the Dublin Metropolitan Area only one larceny in every four was detected in 1984 — the figure is 24 per cent. Some 75 per cent of larcenies went undetected and the perpetrators went scot-free. That is the reality.
That is the reality. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Deputy Woods' Bill, as he rightly pointed out, that will increase the detection rate. That remains and will remain unchanged and completely unaffected by anything in this Bill.
How do we increase the detection rate? To increase the detection rate requires a number of things to be done, but the most important would be that we make better use of the detection resources that we have, that is to say our excellent Garda force. We are not using that force, limited and constrained though they are, to the best advantage. The gardaí are highly trained men and women. They are a fine force. They have acquired an expertise in their practice and in their training, but their time is in many ways and in a substantial way wasted and abused. If one was to go, for example, into Rathfarnham District Court — I do not single out Rathfarnham District Court, the same probably applies in any District Court dealing with criminal work up and down the country — one would find perhaps on Monday at 10 a.m. the court filled to capacity with maybe 40 or 50 gardaí sitting there most of whom will be there for hours on end waiting for their cases to come up. Many of those cases will not be reached until 4.30 p.m. or 5 p.m. Therefore, a massive force of gardaí on a regular basis must spend their time twiddling their thumbs waiting for their cases to come up in the District Court and other courts up and down the country. If one was to calculate the number of garda hours lost, thrown away and wasted by this kind of procedure the figure would be staggering.
A better procedure could be devised to organise that system which has remained very largely unchanged over the years. I have no doubt that a better system could be devised under which the lists would be divided up. These are just a few suggestions and there could be others. The court clerk could have a preliminary hearing to see which case was going to take five minutes and which case was going to take two hours. The first case on the list could take two hours, and 50 gardaí are sitting there doing nothing for two hours while one garda is involved in a case. Preliminary inquiries by the court clerks or arrangements that would require defendants or solicitors to give an indication of what time would be taken on their cases could result in a tremendous saving and the best possible use of Garda resources, which are a scarce commodity. Specialists in this field, work study experts, are called in by major industrial firms to make a study of the best use of resources and how matters should be planned and organised. It would be a worthwhile investment if some of these work study specialists were called in to look at the operation of the court system, to devise an arrangement under which large numbers of these gardaí could be released from having to sit there and could go about the business which they are employed to do and whose services are so desperately needed outside in the community.
As I have said, the crime situation is very serious but this Bill is not going to resolve it. It touches no more than the fringes of the problem. Reference has been made to the Oglesby case. I think Deputy Woods quoted that in his opening remarks. That case did not really change anything very much. The position still remains even after that case that if a criminal is found in possession of recently stolen goods that is still a factor that the courts may and do take into account in determining whether he is guilty. Even the English Theft Act did not change that to any extent. That still remains the law in England. It is a factor to be taken into account. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Act which has now been passed goes a very long way towards, so to speak, improving the position from the prosecution point of view in cases of that nature. Many people in this House thought in the course of that debate that that Bill and that provision went too far in being of assistance to the prosecution. Deputy Fitzgerald, who has spoken here just now, thought it did not go far enough. I must admit that I think it struck a reasonable compromise. Now when a person is found in possession of recently stolen goods and is called on to give an explanation, if he gives no explanation he commits an offence immediately and is liable to 12 months' imprisonment. If he gives an explanation he may be charged with stealing, receiving, obtaining by fraudulent means or whatever. That is provided for in that section and without a doubt when that comes into operation it will be a very valuable weapon in the hands of the prosecution. There is also the provision that if he fails to give an explanation, the court — be it judge and jury, justice or whoever — may draw the appropriate inferences from what he has said or has not said. Again that constitutes quite a heavy transfer of the normal burden of proof that lies on the prosecution.
That is correct.
The legal position, even aside from the new Act, is as given by District Justice Kenny in the decision in the Oglesby case. As recorded at page 167 of that report he quotes another case with approval. He said, and I quote:
... I think that the proper way in which to approach the determination of the case of recently stolen goods is as follows: if the prosecution have established the fact that the defendant had possession of goods recently stolen and has given an explanation that he came by them innocently, the tribunal, whether judge, justice or jury, must consider whether the facts established admit of any reasonable construction which is consistent with the innocence of the accused. If they do, and one such construction may be that the explanation is true, he should be acquitted;
Nobody will want to alter that basic legal position—
if they do not, he may be convicted.
The point is that he must not be convicted. Whether he is convicted or not ultimately in that situation rests with the trial court, with the judge and jury or with the justice if that is what it is. Mr. Justice Kenny went on:
Where the only evidence is that an accused person is in possession of property recently stolen, a jury may infer guilty knowledge (a) if he offers no explanation to account for his possession, or (b) if the jury are satisfied that the explanation he does offer is untrue.
Even in the present position, even without the Criminal Justice Act of 1985, a person found in possession of recently stolen goods either gives no explanation or gives an explanation. If the jury are satisfied that that is inadequate or untrue they are still perfectly entitled to convict him. The only point is that there is no obligation on them to convict him. That is the function of the jury and the function of the justice and nobody would want to change that.
It is put forward that this Bill will be some kind of panacea. This is a major fallacy.
No, a little step.
I do not say that there may not be a very small margin of cases that will be covered by the provisions of this Bill, situations where the prosecution authorities would detect the crime.
As Deputy Woods rightly pointed out, the problem is detection and 75 per cent of crimes are not detected. We are talking about the few cases where detection has occurred and the prosecution authorities examine the case and find that the evidence does not quite measure up because while the defendant has been found in possession of stolen goods, the explanation would result in acquittal. I am not saying that there are no cases which fall into that category. There may be, but they are precious few. This Bill will not increase the detection rate. The increase in prosecutions or convictions would be only marginal.
The Bill makes great play of the distinction between a person receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen and receiving stolen goods believing them to have been stolen. The proposition is put forward that it is easier for the prosecution to prove that a man received stolen goods believing them to have been stolen rather than knowing them to have been stolen. The logic behind that escapes me. I should like somebody to clarify how the prosecution would go about giving evidence as to what the criminal in the dock believed. Who knows what a person believes? Can one prove what a person believes?
We will explain it on Committee Stage.
No doubt the Deputy will explain it, but I am giving my views now.
Does the Deputy want crime to continue? Is he all for crime?
This notion of what a person believes is not new in the legal system. That is there already in connection with the issuing of did cheques. It is known how difficult it is to get a conviction where a person issues a cheque which is returned endorsed r/d. That hinges on the question of whether the person believed that he had no money in the bank at the time and that the cheque would bounce. It is virtually impossible to secure a conviction in these cases; otherwise there would be a great many more convictions of this kind than there are at present. This subtlety, this suggestion that changing the phrase "knowing them to have been stolen" will bring about any dramatic change in the very serious crime figures quoted by Deputy Gene Fitzgerald is nonsense. Indeed, it might make it even more difficult for the prosecution. What a person believes is known only in his own mind. It would be a daunting task for the prosecution to establish on evidence what a person believed at the time that he acquired goods.
On the other hand, the existing parameters of the offence of receiving stolen property result in a catch-all situation. The man who buys the goods from the nameless person in the pub gets caught and convicted every day of the week if he does not give an explanation. District Justices are down to earth people, by and large. I will not say that there are not exceptions; we have had the occasional cases which diverge from the norm. People quite frequently give explanations that they bought a video, for example, from the man in the pub. I have heard it myself on a number of occasions. I can tell Deputy Woods, through the Chair, that it does not wash and in those cases convictions apply. The same applies to people who buy goods at knock-down prices. I do not say that there would not be situations in which the concepts in the Bill could not or would not produce a very marginal improvement in the bringing of prosecutions. It certainly will not help with detection.
If we are to make any major impact on the crime figures we want to increase the rate of detection and the only way to do that is by extending the resources of the Garda Síochána. We can do that by revising the court system which ties up so many Garda man hours wastefully. We can also increase Garda effectiveness by providing back-up staff in Garda stations. That is a very important point which was discussed by the crime committee of this House. One finds highly trained gardaí typing out statements in this day and age, using two fingers, laboriously taking hours to do so. If a secretary were provided it would release gardaí for other more worthwhile tasks and more worthwhile crime work.
If we want to show that we are really tackling the problem we must do something about the delays taking place in the prosecution of cases which are detected and in which prosecutions are brought. It is taking far too long for cases to be prepared and prosecutions carried through. It is taking far too long for court time to be found for trials and appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal to take place.
It is very important that when detections take place it be highlighted that justice operates fairly both for the prosecution and the accused. We must be very careful not to be carried away by the crime figures and bend one way and accept less than reasonably required proofs to establish that a person is a criminal. Justice has to be fair to both sides and also has to be quick. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. It does not look good in the eyes of the general public and is not healthy in the case of other criminals or would-be criminals that very prolonged delays take place before criminals who have been detected and charged are finally brought to book.
We have seen cases of adverse comment by justices complaining about long delays in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or with the other prosecuting authorities in preparing cases for prosecution. Undoubtedly, unacceptable delays are taking place. I am not putting the blame on the Director of Public Prosecutions, far from it. He is doing his best with the resources at his disposal. It may well be that he requires an increase in the resources available. Likewise, so far as court hearings are concerned, it is essential that when the prosecution is brought and the accused returned for trial there should not be delays of six, nine or even 12 months before the case is brought to hearing. We hear of cases where other offences are committed while that accused is out on bail for a prolonged period. Speed is essential. In no case after an accused has been returned for trial should there be allowed a delay of more than one month, or three months at an absolute outside. Our criminal justice system should be revamped to take cognisance of that.
I welcome the bringing forward of the Bill. It is a valuable contribution that we have debated the subject here. I hope that it will produce the legal reform and updating that are required across the spectrum of the legal system, more particularly with regard to fraud, company fraud and so on. The thanks of the House are due to the Opposition for giving the House an opportunity of conducting that debate.
I thank Deputy Taylor for his kind remarks and his welcome for the Bill, and Deputy Cosgrave for his contribution last week. In his opening remarks, the Minister for Justice said: "The Larceny Acts are rather technical and complex, and the Government accept that the law in this area is in need of some modernisation". In that way the Minister dismissed the Bill out of hand. I am sure Deputy Woods would be prepared to accept amendments to the Bill if they were proposed because it is very necessary that the country would have legislation along these lines. All Deputies agree that the crime level is far too high and that statements issued recently that it had dropped by 2.6 per cent will do nothing to relieve the fears of the community.
In 1983 during my by-election campaign in the sprawling Dublin Central constituency, at every doorstep the major complaint I got, apart from the levels of taxation and unemployment, was about the level of crime, particularly in that neighbourhood. The catchcry of the people there was what were we doing about the introduction of legislation to combat crime. In 1984 there was a total of 98,000 indictable crimes and 94,000 of them involved burglary, robberies and theft. That surely indicates that there is a ready market for stolen property.
Unfortunately, the 1916 Act is defective in many ways, particularly in regard to crimes committed during the day. As it stands, the law is outdated and consequently the Garda are frustrated. We hear and read of cases of culprits being identified and brought before the courts but the cases are thrown out for lack of proof. Therefore, habitual criminals can continue their burglaries and robberies. If a person is detected and apprehended in a house or other building with the obvious intent of committing a crime he can be acquitted on a technicality. That is a ludicrous situation. Most of the burglaries committed in my constituency are done during the day. Old people leave their homes in the mornings to do their shopping or to go to Mass and later have a chat with their friends. When they return they find their homes burgled.
The law as laid down in the 1916 Larceny Act will never lead to a reduction in the crime rate. I cannot believe that there has been any reduction in the number of house breakings and, as Deputy Woods said, the existence of receivers or fences means that thieves and robbers can realise on their stolen property. The prosecution rate is not very high. Though the Bill before us may not be wonderful, it would go some way towards relieving the position. At least it would provide a method of identifying and proving stolen property in court.
Deputy Fitzgerald spoke about the crime rate in Cork and said it is dramatic. I did not tell the Deputy about the position in my constituency. Shopkeepers have to close their doors at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. because they are afraid to stay open. We can see the dead city in the heart of Dublin with shops and stores in Henry Street and O'Connell Street shut early in the evening. The Garda Síochána are doing their best but even if the detection rate were 100 per cent the criminals can get away on technicalities and go on committing the same crimes.
Many people these days enjoy the luxury of TV and video sets. They are a favourite target of thieves and burglars, but if there were no buyers for them there would be fewer robberies. Deputy Taylor said that detection of these cases can be very difficult because of the method of proving that goods were stolen. I do not agree. It may be difficult to prove that receivers are dealing in stolen property, but if the law were updated I submit that proving the goods were stolen would be less difficult. I know persons who have been arrested and allowed out on bail. Because of delays suspects can be on bail for 12 months without being brought for trial and in the case of one such person the Garda are suspicious that he has being committing similar crimes in the meantime throughout the area in which he lives.
I repeat that I regard the 1916 Act as outmoded. Its provisions leave much to be desired. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister for Justice and to Deputies opposite not to be so ready to reject this Bill. There is a good deal of merit in this Bill. If the Minister with his access to expertise in his Department introduced amendments to make this Bill more acceptable to the House, it would be a good thing.
According to the Garda Síochána the number of cars being stolen in Dublin has been reduced in recent times. I doubt that, as people come to me in my clinics indicating that a huge number of cars are being stolen. In fact my car was stolen three times in the last two years. I am aware of the crime situation. Recently I was involved in a mugging, and I can assure the House that it is a frightening experience. I understand the frustration and fear in the minds of people generally and in the minds of old people living alone. There are quite a number of old people living alone in my constituency. One old lady told me that she leaves the house at 8 o'clock in the morning, goes to Mass, does her shopping, returns home at midday for a meal, locks the house for the rest of the day and will not even answer the phone.
Taking that kind of fear into account, surely some legislation should be introduced. Our Bill might not be the perfect solution, but it will go some way towards reducing the crime rate. If there were no receivers there would be no robbers. At the moment one can go to certain city centre areas to buy videos, taperecorders, furniture and so on, and if the person approached has not got the merchandise he will make an appointment for the buyer to come back, when he will supply what is required. Surely it is up to the Minister for Justice to introduce legislation as quickly as possible to attempt to curb the crime rate. In his speech the Minister indicated that he had a lot of legislation pending and that he could not give priority to this Bill. The people generally have lost confidence in the forces of law and order and the Minister should attempt to redress that situation.
Deputy Woods mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill which has been temporarily postponed until the Garda Complaints Bill is passed. It might deal with receivers of stolen property.
It will not, except in a minor way.
The aspect of dealing with the receiving of stolen property should be dealt with separately. Deputy Taylor says we should not do things piecemeal but, if an initiative is not taken, we will be waiting for the draftsmen in the Department of Justice to draft Bills while the crime rate continues to rise.
As far as I can see the 2.6 per cent reduction in the indictable crime rate to which the Minister referred has not alleviated the situation in the city centre. In Dublin people are terrified to walk the streets at night because of break-ins, robberies, muggings and other violent crimes. The Bill introduced by Deputy Woods may not be perfect, but it should be given a hearing by the Minister. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Bill he should bring in another Bill to curb crime. The more receivers there are, the more crime will be committed and the crime rate for stolen property at the moment is astronomical. Most of the business houses in Dublin city know the criminals but when the criminals are apprehended it is difficult to prove where the goods came from. The Minister should give serious thought to the inadequate 1916 Larceny Act and bring in a Bill to update the legislation in regard to stolen property.
I hope the Minister will consider at least some of the points in Deputy Woods' Bill when he frames a Bill of his own. I also hope that the crime rate in Dublin will decrease at an accelerated rate. The position in Dublin at the moment is that car stealing, joyriding, burglaries and robberies are continuing. Cars stolen in Dublin are being used as battering rams in the perpetration of robberies in the rural areas. Obviously the rate of car thefts in Dublin is not diminishing to any degree. Car stealing and thefts from cars are continuing. No later than three weeks ago I saw three juveniles using jemmies in an effort to break the rear window of a car.
Debate adjourned.