Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1989

Vol. 393 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - Criminal Justice Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a Second Reading until a report on—
(a) the necessity for corroborative evidence, and
(b) the proposed power of the Minister for Justice to refer cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and
(c) other related issues
shall have been made by the Law Reform Commission and its recommendations considered by Dáil Éireann.
—(Deputy J. O'Keeffe).

In regard to this Bill the Minister decided that a committee should be set up under the chairmanship of Judge Frank Martin. He has not yet spelled out the terms of reference of the committee but it is a step in the right direction.

The point was made yesterday evening that the knowledge and experience gained vis-á-vis the outcome of the Guildford Four case obviously caused people to wonder what should be done and whether there was an urgent need in that regard. I said that there should not be a knee jerk reaction in this country as we do not want to imply that we are concerned about decisions of our courts or the abilities or equity exercised by the Garda in bringing cases to court. However, we should look at the situation in great detail.

Safeguards are very necessary and in need of upgrading. This was supposed to have been done in the United Kingdom and yet we had the dreadful happenings in court cases there. We must realise that the two ghastly and tragic bombings which brought death and destruction to two cities in the UK caused a ferocious backlash of British public opinion. There was great pressure on the British police with the result that they over-reacted even though there was lack of evidence and that which was brought forward led to convictions which were false.

There is still the unfinished business of the Birmingham Six case where everybody is of the opinion that they are innocent. As a result of public opinion in the UK, tremendous goodwill and meticulous work by the solicitors and lawyers representing the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, their cases were brought to the notice of various key people in the community, resulting in a half-successful outcome. In this country many people expressed their concern about these cases but we must give credit to Members in this House and people throughout the community who formed various action committees to ensure that the miscarriage of justice would be rectified. However, we must not have an excessive reaction to these cases. The Minister last week outlined his concern that we should be seen to do the right thing. He appointed a chairman with experience, expertise and knowledge to head a committee, the membership of which would be drawn from a broad spectrum of society with the necessary back-up to ensure that we get a workmanlike report as soon as possible.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe was concerned that the Minister had not spelled out in adequate detail the workings of the committee, the terms of reference, when they would be appointed and when they would be expected to report. I hope the Minister will avail of the opportunity later, when addressing the House, to outline in some detail his intentions in regard to the workings of this committee. Other areas of the law can be looked at while the committee are in session. Therefore, I urge the Minister to make the terms of reference reasonably broad and to ensure that there will be an opportunity to look at cases in which there is a doubt as to a person's guilt. Friends and relatives of convicted persons may wish to make a case in regard to their innocence. With that in mind, the Labour Party should take stock of the situation. I appreciate that Deputy Spring was fast off the block and brought forward a Bill but it is a cumbersome, direct copy of UK legislation which does not adequately cover the circumstances.

There are a number of unique aspects in our circumstances which are probably not applicable to the workings of the Labour Party Bill. I urge the House to reach a consensus on this matter and I hope there will be an acceptance across the floor that the Minister intends to ensure that the committee will report speedily to him. I am sure he will introduce the necessary legislation in this regard. The subject needs attention and there is universal agreement that there should be action. However, the Minister's way is the most pragmatic course to follow.

I hope the Minister will designate the middle of 1990 as the deadline by which the committee should report. The action, determination, goodwill and the drive on behalf of the Birmingham Six should be escalated as far as possible to ensure that the whole situation is reviewed. Deputy Andrews, in addressing the House last evening, made a number of very pertinent suggestions about the Birmingham Six case which would get the Home Secretary off the hook in relation to it. He should accept, as Deputy Andrews suggested, that these unfortunate people should at least be given bail which would enable them to spearhead a campaign in relation to their defence. They should have the opportunity to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they were innocent of the crime and that they have been very badly and wrongly treated.

The Home Secretary said he would not reopen their case unless new evidence was uncovered. Surely, since the Court of Appeal ruled on the Birmingham Six case, the outcome of the Guildford Four case is new evidence? The Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, made some comments recently about the possibility that within the framework of the investigation into how the Guildford Four case was handled and processed, there might be a dimensional angle which would cover the Birmingham Six. In that way there might be some form of understanding that new evidence had arisen which would lead to a re-opening or renewed hearing of the case. The pragmatic proposal that the Birmingham Six should be released on bail, pending the outcome of the investigation of the Guildford Four case, and the likely continuing need to scrutinise those cases, would appear to be an acceptable solution, particularly bearing in mind the length of time these unfortunate people have spent in prison, now running to 15 years. There is need for a magnanimous gesture on the part of the British Government to rectify the lack of credit now reflecting on their system of justice.

Probably I should have said at the outset I intended sharing my time with my colleague, Deputy Flood. I should like now to allocate him the remainder of time available to me.

The Deputy has 12 minutes.

The Guildford Four case alone at times has highlighted the fatal weakness inherent in the British system of justice. The degree of similarity between our system of criminal justice and that obtaining in England leads me to the inevitable conclusion — arising out of the Guildford Four case and others — that there is need for a critical, searching examination of ours. I am very pleased that the Minister has already moved in that direction. His decision to invite Judge Frank Martin to chair a committee of experts to carry out an examination of the issues raised, particularly by the Guildford Four case and in the context of our criminal procedures as a whole, is very timely. I am sure this proposal is welcomed by all Members of this House, bearing in mind other Members' contributions to this debate, the introduction of the Bill by Deputy Spring and the amendment proposed by the Fine Gael Party.

The Guilford Four case constitutes an appalling tragedy. What is now clear is that police investigating that case appear to have given false evidence which, in itself, was bad enough. It also appears that alibi evidence was suppressed by the investigating police. Those two wrongs done to the defendants in the Guildford Four case gave rise to the convictions handed down with such disastrous consequences for the people themselves.

While I readily agree that the case itself does call into question aspects of the English legal system and the apparent absence of checks and balances, it highlights in a particular way the apparent need for the English police to be more aware that there are those among their numbers who will act unlawfully at times in the discharge of their duties. Why they should be compelled to act in that unlawful manner is difficult to understand. It appears to me that this may be because investigating police in the United Kingdom are subjected to such enormous pressures to obtain results when investigating certain types of crime. We are all familiar with various press articles and media headlines in the aftermath of the outrages and bombings that have taken place in Britain. These terrible deeds are perpetrated by people purporting to act on behalf of the Irish people. Unfortunately, sometimes the media in the United Kingdom fail to draw a distinction between such perpetrators of violence, acting without the support of the Irish people, in the way in which I believe they should. At times this gives rise, in turn, to the type of circumstances which arose in regard to the Guildford Four, their wrongful conviction and, I believe, others also.

I might pose the question: could similar circumstances as arose in the case of the Guildford Four occur here? One cannot say with absolute certainty that they would not arise here. However, if they did, as the Minister has pointed out there is a remedy available here whereby the Government could advise the President to grant a pardon under Article 13 of our Constitution. Of course, in circumstances in which somebody was wrongly convicted I am sure she or he might not be entirely happy with that procedure, that they would prefer that we had in being a system whereby doubt concerning their innocence could be removed, so that it could be clearly shown they were innocent of the crime of which they had been wrongfully convicted.

For that reason and others I go along with the Minister when he said that Deputy Spring's Bill is precipitate. The issues raised in the Bill are timely. The contributions to this debate carry a great deal of merit, bringing into focus once again the serious issues which have arisen in Britain in the case of the Guildford Four and the others still remaining to be resolved.

The Minister for Justice and Communications, with the approval of Government, has established a committee to examine, as a matter of urgency, certain aspects of our criminal procedures in the light of the issues raised by the Guildford Four case. I understand that the Minister announced the terms of reference of that committee this evening which are: first, to examine whether there is need for a procedure whereby persons who have been convicted of criminal offences and who have exhausted the normal appeals procedures can have their cases further reviewed and, if so, to make recommendations as to what procedure should be provided and in what circumstances it should apply, and, second, given that uncorroborated inculpatory admissions made by an accused to the Garda Síochána can be sufficient evidence to ground a conviction, to examine whether additional safeguards are needed to ensure that such admissions are properly maintained and recorded and to make recommendations accordingly.

As we are aware, His Honour, Judge Frank Martin, Judge of the Circuit Court, is to act as chairman of the committee. I am advised that the other members of the committee will be: Mr. Edwin Alkin, office of the Attorney General; Mr. Henry Abbott, Barrister; Mr. Frank Ward, Solicitor; Mr. Hugh Sreenan, Assistant Commissioner, Garda Síochána; Mr. Patrick Terry of the Department of Justice. I understand that Mr. Paul Murray of the Department of Justice will act as secretary to the committee. It would be my hope — one expressed already by other Members — that the committee will get down to their very important work and will report their findings to Government at the earliest possible date.

All of us who have witnessed the difficulties which have arisen, particularly for Irish people in the United Kingdom, will understand that we need to develop a legal system here capable of responding to cases in which it can be clearly shown that there is or has been a miscarriage of justice. It is right that we should endeavour to achieve this, particularly as we call on the United Kingdom Government to review their system of Justice to ensure there will not be a recurrence of the Guildford Four and other cases or that, if there is, the system will be capable of responding more promptly to the need to have them reviewed, thereby ensuring that justice is seen to be done. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for justice to be seen to have been done in the case of the Guildford Four, that the Birmingham Six and other cases still drag on while to anybody who takes the trouble to study the details surrounding such cases it appears highly probable that further miscarriages of justice have occurred.

For that reason there is the need to be vigilant always within our jurisdiction to ensure that whatever changes we effect to our legal system are properly geared, so that in our rush to deal with the problems highlighted by the Guildford Four case, we do not import part of legal systems from other jurisdictions which may be flawed to some extent, which would appear to be the case with portions of the English legal system.

I must tell the House at the outset that I intend to divide my time with Deputy Rabbitte. Events have moved on since our discussion here last night. Earlier this evening there was a brief meeting between the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Dick Spring, who is the proposer of the Criminal Justice Bill, and the Minister for Justice. At that meeting they discussed the several suggestions which Deputy Spring had made in relation to the Minister's proposal of an expert committee to examine the issues raised by the Bill, and originally by the Guildford Four case. The suggestions which had been made by Deputy Spring were as follows: 1. Specific terms of reference for the committee; 2. A deadline on its activities; 3. A guarantee of publication of their report; 4. Representation on the committee itself.

At the end of the meeting the Minister supplied Deputy Spring with a letter, the contents of which I wish to read into the record of the House:

I refer to your letter of 28th November regarding your Party's Criminal Justice Bill.

I enclose for your information the terms of reference of the Committee to enquire into certain aspects of criminal procedure. I also enclose the membership of the Committee.

The terms of reference have been carefully framed to enable the Committee to deal comprehensively with the issues raised by the Guildford case (given that it will still remain possible to secure a conviction on the basis of uncorroborated confessions) and I am satisfied that they achieve that purpose.

I will be anxious to obtain the recommendations of the committee as soon as possible. To that end I intend to inform the committee, before they begin their deliberations, that I would like to have their report by the end of March next.

As regards membership, I regard it as important in the interests of getting a report as quickly as possible, that the Committee should be a small group with practical experience or expert knowledge of the issues involved. In these circumstances I am not prepared to add to the membership proposed.

I will, of course, have no objection to publication of the report in due course.

As regards my attitude to your Party's Bill, I take the view, for reasons which I have explained in the Dáil and which have been supported by others, that the Bill does not adequately deal with the issues involved. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate in the context of a full and objective examination by the Committee of the issues involved to have a Bill already on the Order Paper. I think the question of legislation should be looked at afresh when the Committee reports and this I will do. For these reasons, I would not support an adjournment of the debate as you suggest

Yours sincerely

Attached to this letter was a short statement outlining the terms of reference and the membership of the Committee. I wish to read this also into the record of the House. The statement is as follows:

(1) To examine whether there is need for a procedure whereby persons who have been convicted of criminal offences and who have exhausted the normal appeals procedures can have their cases further reviewed and, if so, to make recommendations as to what procedure should be provided and in what circumstances it should apply, and

(2) Given that uncorroborated inculpatory admissions made by an accused to the Garda Síochána can be sufficient evidence to ground a conviction, to examine whether additional safeguards are needed to ensure that such admissions are properly obtained and recorded and to make recommendations accordingly.

The membership of the committee is as follows:

His Honour Judge Frank Martin, Chairman;

Mr. Edwin Alkin, Attorney General's Office;

Mr. Henry Abbott, Barrister;

Mr. Frank Ward, Solicitor;

Mr. Hugh Sreenan, Assistant Commissioner, Garda Síochána;

Mr. Patrick Terry, Department of Justice;

Mr. Paul Murray, Department of Justice, Secretary.

The reason it is necessary to place both of these items on the record of the House is that it is only possible to divine the Minister's true intentions in relation to this matter by considering his letter and the attached statement together. It is clear to us arising from that consideration that this Minister for Justice has decided to embark on an exercise which will be largely cosmetic.

He has, it is true, agreed to both a deadline and to publication of the report, but there his commitment to an open-minded approach ends. This is apparent, first of all, from a consideration of the membership of the committee.

The Labour Party have no wish to cast any aspersions on the character or integrity of the individual members of the committee. On the contrary, the majority of the committee consists of outstanding public servants. But by no stretch of the imagination could this be described as a broadly based committee whose primary aim as a group will be civil libertarian in character. In fact, it will, I think, be readily apparent to most people that this committee will be balanced in the opposite direction — that is to say, it will be more concerned with the practical business of securing convictions than with the necessary task of making recommendations aimed at protecting the rights of accused persons at the same time.

It is when one turns to consider the terms of reference of the committee that the Minister's intentions become fully clear. There were two issues of principle raised by our Bill. The first issue was to establish a right and a mechanism to reopen cases where serious doubt was thrown on any conviction. The Minister for Justice has decided that the first task of this committee should be to examine whether or not there is any need to establish such a right at all. Yet nobody in this House has argued against the principle that we were trying to establish in this regard.

The second issue that our Bill raised was the issue of principle involved in basing convictions on uncorroborated confessions secured in police custody and subsequently contested. The Minister has decided that the committee will not be allowed to examine this issue of principle at all. He has decided instead to prejudge that issue and to ask the committee to undertake its task in the knowledge that uncorroborated confessions will continue to be sufficient evidence on which to base a conviction.

In the light of the experience we have had of the Guildford Four convictions we have to regard it as completely unacceptable that the Minister should seek to pre-judge the views of an expert committee in this way. The principle involved here must be examined and it must be examined by more than the faceless officials of the Department of Justice who have clearly been advising the Minister in this matter. If these terms of reference are allowed to stand as they are, the expert committee will be confined to rehashing the recommendations of the Ó Britain report in relation to the recording of interviews and other matters and to examining such issues as the adequacy of Judges' Rules governing the treatment of persons in custody.

All of these issues have been examined over and over again. The Ó Briain Committee recommendations on recording of interviews, for instance, are now ten years old — and yet the Minister for Justice was able to tell us last week nothing about them except that consideration was now being given to the possible establishment of pilot schemes to test the efficacy of recording interviews.

We have tried to approach this issue with an open mind. We know that not every Member of this House will go along with the measures we have proposed in toto, and we know that the Minister for Justice would not necessarily be in a position to give our Bill a carte blanche welcome.

I have to say that we did not expect the Minister for Justice to seek to perpetrate a con trick of this magnitude in relation to the fundamental issues involved. Only a few nights ago this Minister was on television wallowing in the praise of those who believed he was about to undertake a fundamental and far-reaching examination of our criminal justice procedures. It is quite clear now that he proposes to undertake the least possible change and to ignore the climate of public opinion which would welcome a real commitment to the principle that justice in Ireland is not only done but is always seen to be done.

In these circumstances I wish to advise the House that the Labour Party are formally rejecting the Minister's approach as inadequate and misleading. We will be seeking a vote on Second Stage of this Bill at the conclusion of the debate this evening. We ask for the support of every Opposition Member in that vote and we guarantee that if the Bill gets past Second Stage we will endeavour to meet the legitimate concerns that have been expressed in this debate on both sides of the House.

We want to achieve, at the end of the day, a criminal justice system which is effective against crime but which never gives rise to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. We have all seen at first hand the pain and suffering that miscarriages of justice cause and we have already resolved, each of us in our own way, not to let it happen here. The way to achieve this is to accept the principles of this Bill by voting for it on Second Stage and by carrying on to a rational, detailed and practical consideration of all the issues that arise on Committee Stage and beyond.

I thank Deputy Kavanagh for agreeing to share his time with me. I want to announce that my party will be supporting the position outlined by Deputy Kavanagh. We are disappointed that the statement read into the record by the Minister seems to be a retrenchment of the impression he gave in his response to this Bill when it was initially moved. The bringing forward of this Bill has provided the House with an important opportunity to debate the serious issues that arise from the Guildford Four experience. I do not think anybody on any side of the House is seriously suggesting that the appalling miscarriage of justice revealed in the case of the Guildford Four could only happen in the United Kingdom. The appalling vista which Lord Denning could not bring himself to envisage has since opened up in front of him and the far-reaching implications for the UK criminal justice system are still reverberating throughout the land.

Nobody in the debate so far that I have heard has suggested that the same appalling vista could not open up before us in this jurisdiction. Indeed some Deputies have instanced cases where reliance on confessions could have had terrible consequences. Most pertinently, Deputy Spring instanced the Kerry Babies case, where a person described in the most vivid and graphic detail a series of events which we know never took place and which could have implicated someone in a most serious crime. My colleague, Deputy McCartan, went further when he quite properly reminded this House of the early to middle seventies, the era of the heavy gang. It was a period of gross abuse of civil liberties and of police interrogation procedures, to the extent that there is a widely held view outside this House that during that period there were serious miscarriages of justice.

It is remarkable that while we correctly indict the English establishment for their reluctance to admit their error — at least in the case of the Guildford Four they have, however belatedly, admitted the error — there has never been such an admission in this country by any Government in respect of what transpired during the untrammelled reign of the heavy gang in the early seventies. Deputies McCartan and O'Dea in particular made specific reference to the McNally-Breathnach case and the case colloquially known as the Nicky Kelly case. In that case an error was never admitted and the Minister for Justice of the day exercised his right under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, to release Nicky Kelly.

Deputy Spring described the atmosphere in Britain following the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. Politically it was made clear to the police that they had to get convictions. The panic, chaos and atmosphere produced by these bombs is not entirely unknown to ourselves. This House was railroaded into enacting the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill in 1972 against the better judgment of a majority of this House at that time. When our own city was bombed by terrorists, Deputies who had previously made out substantial cases against the wisdom of enacting that Bill, quickly retracted in the face of the public mood obtaining in Dublin at that time.

Indeed the Emergency Powers Act was similarly born out of the same climate. It is an Act which facilitates the form of police station oriented investigation which is so open to abuse. The police in the Guildford Four case used and abused the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism Act for the same purpose. This by no means seeks to play down the formidable and often dangerous challenge being posed for the Garda by the savages who are tearing this island apart. Some members of the force lost their lives in confronting that challenge and it is correct that this House should salute them.

There is an obligation on legislators, whether in the calm of the Chambers in Leinster House or in the House of Commons, not to enact legislation which is open to being abused in the kind of climate I have described. I do not believe the Minister can assure this House that, especially during the period to which I have referred — 1973 to 1977 — there were no Guildford type cases in this jurisdiction. Accordingly, we now have the opportunity, either through amending this Bill — I think the Leader of the Labour Party indicated that he is open to such amendment — or through the mechanism proposed by the Minister, as I read his opening contribution, to ensure in so far as is possible that we prevent a similar miscarriage of justice occurring or recurring, as the case may be, in this jurisdiction. It would now appear, from what we have just heard from the terms of reference which were made available this evening, that the confidence one could have placed in the expert committee is now seriously diluted and clearly the mandarins in the Department of Justice are back in the saddle. So much for the short-lived reforming reputation of this Minister for Justice.

The decision of the Minister for Justice, during the period to which I have referred, to introduce the interrogation squad, which became later known, after The Irish Times exposé, as the heavy gang, led to such serious allegations that Fianna Fáil at that time promised there would be a full, open inquiry if they were returned to power. In the event, the Ó Briain Commission was established but with far more limited terms of reference than we might have expected. Such as it was, the Ó Briain report which came to hand in 1978 made a number of recommendations, the more substantive of which have not been implemented. The primary one was that an accused, when brought into custody for questioning for whatever reason, should be afforded the benefit of a custodian, somebody not lower than the rank of sergeant, who would tend to his welfare, make sure he was fed, would have access to legal advice and so on. That primary recommendation of the Ó Briain report has never been implemented.

The failure to implement that primary recommendation was exacerbated in the Criminal Justice Act, 1984. Effectively that Act allows, as we know, for the interrogation of an accused for up to six hours but for his detention for a period that could indeed be far longer than six hours. In order to balance that somewhat draconian measure, provision was made for full video taping of the interview that would take place with the accused. That recommendation regrettably has never been implemented either. If arguments about manpower or resources are being adduced as the reason for not implementing the primary recommendation of the Ó Briain report, they cannot be brought forward in the case of this recommendation with respect to video taping of an accused during interrogation. It is especially regrettable that that has not been done.

I want to refer to section 3 of the Bill which, in talking about miscarriages of justice, is of some relevance to a current case. It is believed by 96 Members of this House and a great number of people outside that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken place in the case which has become known as the Tallaght Two. Section 3 provides that the Minister may, if he thinks fit at any time, refer a case to the court and section 3 (2) elucidates on that proposal. As I have said, 96 Members of this House have signed a petition asking the Minister to re-open the case of the Tallaght Two.

A young man is languishing in Pentonville Prison since last July awaiting extradition to this country for a crime to which three others have now confessed in as much as they have participated in a television programme and given news to the printed media to the effect that they committed the crime which is being laid at the door of the Tallaght Two. I think one of the Tallaght Two has served three years and eight months of his five year sentence and the other is awaiting extradition to this jurisdiction for the same crime.

As happened in Britain, forensic evidence has come to light which was not available at the trial or retrial of these two young men but notwithstanding that the Minister has apparently claimed he is powerless to re-open the case. As I read it, this section would give the Minister the authority to re-open and look at that case in the light of that new evidence. That is the basis on which the Birmingham Six case was re-opened. Notwithstanding the fact that forensic evidence which was not available during the initial trial and subsequent retrial of these two young men has now come to light and that there are sworn affidavits from three other young people who say they committed the crime, apparently the Minister is powerless to re-open the case, other than exercising his right under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 and releasing them. Quite properly the parents of these young people are not happy about this. They believe there was a miscarriage of justice and that these young people were convicted for a crime they did not commit. As I read it, section 3 of Deputy Spring's Bill would allow the Minister the facility whereby he could order a retrial on the basis of the new evidence which has come to light.

That is a current topical controversial example of a miscarriage of justice in this jurisdiction for which apparently there is no ready remedy available. As well as the other reasons various speakers have adduced during the debate on the Bill this is another reason for supporting the Bill. Deputy Spring, Deputy McCartan and others have outlined in graphic detail what happened in the Guildford Four case and why we have no cause to be complacent. The Minister has admitted that we have no cause to be complacent that a similar situation could not happen, that is if it has not already happened, in this jurisdiction.

I have some reservations about ruling out in all instances the reliability of admissions or confessions in all circumstances. There have been cases where people, out of remorse, have admitted and confessed to crimes years after the event. When one looks at the length to which a small number of police in south-east England went to subvert the cause of justice, fabricate a case against the four people concerned and to extract confessions from them through brutality — section 2 requires that other material evidence in support be brought forward — I do not think it is beyond the bounds of imagination that a small number of dishonest policemen, which is a very mild term for them, would not go so far as to fabricate other material evidence if they thought it was necessary to secure a conviction. I have some reservations about this and initially I thought from the Minister's contribution that he would meet the Labour Party Bill half way. I am sorry he has not done so. The terms of reference which were read out in the House this evening leave a great deal to be desired. It is regrettable that the opportunity presented to us by this Bill to tackle the possibility, even if it is no more than that, of a similar situation arising in this jurisdiction is not being faced up to more definitively in this debate.

I would like, with the agreement of the House, to share some of my time with Deputy John Ellis.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The discussion on this Bill this evening and last week has given us an opportunity to deal with some of the questions which were raised by the Guildford Four case. I compliment Deputy Spring on having brought forward this Bill for the purposes of enabling this discussion to take place in a formal way during Private Members' time. Before dealing with the merits or the demerits of the Bill I should like to take up a couple of points raised by Deputy Rabbitte.

He questioned the degree to which the Minister for Justice is committed to reform on the basis that he has not accepted this Bill as quickly as Deputy Rabbitte would have liked him to. I think the presumption being made is that this Bill which simply incorporates to a large extent the English precedent in section 17 of the relevant Criminal Justice Act into our legislation forgets that there is a very fundamental difference in our legal system, that is, the existence of a written Constitution. Set out in the Constitution is a separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary and the role of the courts, which is set out in the relevant Articles. This makes the issues which are to be dealt with more difficult and complex in that it has to be properly ensured that a negation of justice, which is synonymous with the Guildford Four case, will not occur in this jurisdiction. In other words, he is not comparing like with like when he refers to the English and Irish legal systems. Under our Constitution certain rights are guaranteed to the citizen and they are based on the constitutional case law of the High Court and the Supreme Court. To say that our refusal to accept the Bill is an indication of our lack of reforming zeal scantily brushes over the real difference that exists between the two systems.

I was referring to the terms of reference of the committee also.

The Deputy complained that the main thrust of the Ó Briain report was not taken on board, the need to have a sergeant appointed as a guardian of a person held in Garda custody. It is the case under the treatment regulations, adopted as a result of the House passing the Criminal Justice Bill, 1984, that the member in charge of the Garda station is required by law to ensure that those regulations are complied with in interrogation procedures in the station. We are getting into the area of semantics if we claim that the terms of that recommendation were not adopted simply because the member in charge is not referred to in the regulations as the guardian. I have had experience of dealing with an offender who was charged with explosive offences and who was detained in Garda custody. From that experience I am aware that the treatment regulations are more than adequate to ensure that there is no question of untoward conduct adopted by interrogators in a Garda station. We are not giving credit to the Irish legal system if we say that that recommendation was not adopted. The spirit of that recommendation is operated in this jurisdiction and it has proved effective.

The Guildford Four case was about police giving false evidence and suppressing alibi evidence. One must laud Deputy Spring for bringing forward his Bill in Private Members' time in an effort to ensure that at no stage and under no circumstances would such a perversion of justice occur in this jurisdiction. I accept that in the past the proper rules and procedures were not applied in certain cases but those cases have been dealt with and the people concerned exonerated. However, we must bear in mind that since those unfortunate happenings the Criminal Justice Bill, 1984, passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas and that treatment regulations were introduced. In my view we have shown a commitment to take steps to deal with issues raised in the Ó Briain report of 1977. That report was commissioned following a number of complaints about the treatment of people in Garda custody.

Our legal system is different from the British legal system and, as former Deputy Kelly would say, we should not ape their legislative proposals. If former Deputy Kelly was a Member today I am sure he would express a similar view. We have a written Constitution, unlike the British, and we have a Minister for Justice who is committed to dealing with this matter. He has set up a committee of experts to deal with these complex issues and that is an indication of his determination. He could have referred the matter to the Law Reform Commission, an excellent group headed by Mr. Justice Keane. The commission have a heavy work load to deal with but they would have been in a position to present a report to the Minister on this issue. The committee of experts, headed by the no nonsense Judge Frank Martin, will adopt a considered approach to this question and produce a report swiftly. I have no doubt that when the report is published the Minister will proceed to deal with the complex issues which do not necessarily arise in British law.

If the Guildfour Four case highlighted anything it was that if we are to provide a legitimate response in our criminal law system it must be one that is adequate, will stand up to legal scrutiny and be devoid of any taint of unconstitutionality. The separation of powers under our Constitution is fraught with difficulties. The implications of a referral of a case back to the Court of Criminal Appeal by a member of the Executive, that is a Minister for Justice, would have to be well thought out. We must ensure that the legislation enacted will give effect to the laudable objectives of the Bill before us and will withstand legal scrutiny as to its constitutionality.

There is a need to ensure in our jurisdiction that non-judicial persons, like the Minister for Justice who is a member of the Executive, are not deemed to be acting either in a judicial or quasi-judicial way. The 1924 Act deals with court appeals in criminal cases. If, following a refusal by a trial judge to grant leave to appeal, a Minister for Justice refers the case to an appellant court the Minister could be deemed to be acting in a quasi-judicial way. Under our Constitution judicial decisions are absolutely within the competence of our Judiciary. We must be careful that our legislation does not impinge on that absolute sovereignty that the Judiciary have in these matters. I have no doubt that the committee of experts will tease out that issue. The members of the committee are well qualified to prepare an informed and adequate report for the Minister that will help him prepare the necessary legislation. I have no doubt that they will ensure that the objectives Deputy Spring seeks in his Bill will not be tainted by unconstitutionality.

In this context we should consider the ingenious way we dealt with the Extradition Bill last year. Following the passage of that Bill the Attorney General was able to deal with each case on the facts presented to him. He was in a position to seek further evidence prior to any warrant for extradition being endorsed by a Garda superintendent, chief superintendent or a higher officer. We ensured that matters dealt with by the Attorney General would not be subject to a judicial process because the documentation presented to him had not been endorsed and made valid in this jurisdiction. We need a provision along those lines to ensure that a Minister for Justice is not deemed to be impinging on what is a judicial or quasi-judicial function.

For a number of practical reason I am against the total abolition of statements where corroborative evidence is not available. For example, in cases where an accused makes a statement voluntarily and makes an admission of guilt before the court, in particular, the Special Criminal Court, a lesser sentence is likely to be passed on that person on the basis that he was prepared to meet the case. It would be assumed that those statements were made voluntarily unless evidence to the contrary is given to the trial judge which would lead him to rule that they were not admissible in evidence. Not only would this be done away with under Deputy Spring's Bill, but the prosecution would not even be given the opportunity to argue that the burden of proof should be reversed. Neither would uncorroborated statements be allowed. It would be presumed they were involuntarily given unless the prosecution could produce evidence to show that they were given voluntarily. Under no circumstances would those statements be allowed.

This would encourage a burden of proof way beyond what would be required. A defendant would also be precluded from meeting the case, if he wished to do so. There are many cases where statements are given voluntarily and the defendant goes into court to meet the case but his counsel outlines mitigating circumstances which are taken into consideration by the judge in deciding sentence. If this possibility were to be removed, other evidence, which might not otherwise have been provided by the prosecution, would then come before the court which would then go through the relevant proofs in relation to that evidence; a significant amount of time would be taken up in so doing and the defendant would not be given the opportunity to indicate to the judge that he was prepared to meet the case, that he was admitting his guilt but was outlining mitigating circumstances in order to have the sentence reduced. In fact, he could end up getting a heavier sentence.

This matter is fraught with difficulties and we have got to be flexible. There is considerable constitutional case law to which we can refer, in particular, the case of the DPP versus Lynch where it was pointed out that at the end of the day it is a matter for the judge to decide. Therefore, if statements are given involuntarily it is up to the defence to bring this to the notice of the judge and if he is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, in other words if there is any doubt, he is to give the benefit to the defendant and not allow those statements to be admitted in evidence. I think that is the proper criminal law procedure which has worked more than adequately. Given that the treatment regulations are now in force, evidence to show that statements were involuntarily given can more than adequately be brought forward by the defence in the relevant case to ensure that those statements are deemed inadmissible.

Therefore, I do not believe, given the way in which our criminal law system works at present, it is necessary to abolish uncorroborated confessions as a means of obtaining convictions. If there were no treatment regulations, and we found ourselves in a position similar to the one we found ourselves in 1977 prior to the presentation of the Ó Briain report, where it is possible to say that there was ill-treatment and evidence could be given to show this, a case could be made for such abolition. What I am saying is that it is possible to go about this in another way to ensure that a citizen's constitutional and legal rights are safeguarded in places of custody through the effective implementation of the treatment regulations made under the 1984 Criminal Justice Act. In my experience, those regulations have proved to be effective.

As I said at the outset, while we would all be in agreement with the laudable objectives of the Bill, the fact is our system is different from the one being operated in Britain. We have constitutional case law to which we can refer and there is a separation of powers under the Constitution which is not the case in Britain. The Minister is also setting up a committee of experts to look at this matter. That is the proper and prudent thing to do. We would do the citizens of this country a disservice if we were to precipitate a Bill which proved itself to be inadequate even in one case. We should remember that we cannot afford to get it wrong even in one case.

This is a matter of some importance and I do not believe the consideration of this matter by a committee of experts will prejudice the position between now and then. The present safeguards, such as the treatment regulations, our constitutional case law and the evidence which may be brought before a trial judge, are more than adequate to deal with this matter. They would have been more than adequate even if we did not have the Guildford Four case. In other words, we are imputing a difficulty which may not be there, given the constitutional case law available to us and every respected and competent defence counsel in the Four Courts.

We must deal with this matter but I do not believe it is of a pressing nature because these safeguards are in place, which may not be the case in Britain. I am not au fait with that system but the right way to proceed is for us to have this matter considered by experts well qualified in this field who will be well able to deal with all of the implications of changes in this area. There is a need to ensure that members of the Executive are not deemed to have a judicial or quasi-judicial function. If they are, this legislation will be deemed unconstitutional. We do not have specific case law in that area.

We were able to deal with this matter with regard to extradition legislation on the basis that we could say with certainty that the evidence being considered by the Attorney General prior to the endorsement of a warrant was not the subject of a judicial process, in other words, it amounts to a pre-trial investigation into the validity or otherwise of a case being made against any person whose extradition has been sought. In this instance, we are dealing with cases which have been tried in the courts, and which could be tried through an appellate court, where two bites at the cherry would already have been granted by our legal system. We have to be very careful before we allow a member of the Executive to refer a case on which the Judiciary have already adjudicated. We have to know the ground on which we stand to ensure we do not impinge on the authority vested in the courts and our Judiciary under the Constitution and in the 1924 Courts of Justice Act.

I would say to Deputy Spring, a legal practitioner of great esteem, that his objectives in moving the Bill, which are to garner discussion and to focus our minds on the issue, have been met. It should be left to the committee of experts who will report back under the chairmanship of Judge Frank Martin to produce a considered and adequate report so that we can bring forward legislation that we can all endorse which would stand up to constitutional or judicial scrutiny.

I wish, with the agreement of the House, to give way to my colleague, Deputy Ellis, for five minutes.

Deputy Spring in introducing this Bill has probably brought to the fore an issue about which some of us may have grave reservations, especially in view of what happened across the Irish Sea. To take verbatim section 17 of the English Criminal Law Act, 1968, would not be in the best interests of the review. Under Article 13 of our Constitution the Government have the right to ask the President to pardon an offender and this right has been used before.

The introduction of this Bill give us an opportunity to look at the need for a review. The Minister's approach is positive as is the fact that he has appointed a review committee of experts, of people who are well respected in the legal area, under the chairmanship of Judge Frank Martin, one of the most respected and competent judges in the State. When we look at what has happened with regard to the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguires and others in British jails, in reviewing their situation we must look at the Garda Síochána. There is not any member of the Garda Síochána who would subvert the course of justice by his actions. There has yet to be proved a case against a member of the Garda Síochána in relation to irregularities with regard to the preparation or taking of evidence. There have been one or two incidents where people feel that justice may not have been done but it has never been found that the actions of the gardaí have been beyond the law or beyond their mandate to question people.

We must welcome the Minister's announcement tonight that the committee will have to report by next March. That gives them about four months to prepare the report. Because the report will be published, the ordinary public will have an opportunity to consider the recommendations and make submissions to the Minister and the Department and to their public representatives. I have no doubt that the committee will not be found wanting in preparing a full report for the Minister. The Minister in his positive action has shown that he also believes that it is now time to review our position. We would never like to have it said that we failed to legislate for a situation such as that which has arisen in relation to the Guildford Four.

We saw what happened to the Birmingham Six in their appeal to a higher court. It was unsuccessful probably due to the fact that the people responsible for the preparation of the evidence did not prepare it in line with the case stated. That is a grave miscarriage of justice. Thankfully we have not had the same problems here with regard to miscarriages of justice. The number of cases where it can be proved that there was a miscarriage of justice here are very few.

In the light of the Minister's action following the presentation of the Bill to the House, I would ask Deputy Spring to reconsider the position and allow the committee to carry out their review. If following that review the Deputy feels it necessary to reintroduce the Bill, he can do so then. Until the committee have reported it would be in the best interests of harmony in the House if the Bill was withdrawn. I hope Deputy Spring can see his way to doing that tonight. That would be positive thinking and it is the sort of action that would lead to harmony.

With the agreement of the House I intend to allow Deputy Durkan speak for about four or five minutes, and I will then conclude the debate.

Deputy Durkan has five minutes.

I sincerely thank Deputy Spring for allowing me share his time in order to make a few points. I compliment my colleague Deputy Jim O'Keeffe for introducing his reasoned and reasonable amendments to this Bill. The first amendment is:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a second reading until a report on—

(a) the necessity for corroborative evidence, and

(b) the proposed power of the Minister for Justice to refer cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and

(c) other related issues

shall have been made by the Law Reform Commission and its recommendations considered by Dáil Éireann".

The two most important points there are the related issues and the consideration by Dáil Éireann. The related issues were that at least some of the recommendations of the Ó Briain report not yet implemented should be considered and that sections 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, providing for inferences to be drawn from the failure of the accused to account for certain matters, be reviewed. The latter is a very important point as we know from reference to cases that have taken place across the Irish Sea in fairly recent times. Another related matter is the failure of the Minister to implement section 27 of the 1984 Act providing for the electronic recording of questioning, thereby protecting the Garda and the accused. Another related matter is the recommendations of senior counsel, Mr. Patrick McEntee, and the Judges Rules which appear to be a sort of rule of thumb guiding the people charged with making decisions, and protecting both the Garda and the accused. The last related matter is the judge's charge to the jury which is something that should and could be reviewed in the context of this Bill on the basis that now would be a time to look at that issue and see whether improvements can be made.

It was understood that the Minister had accepted in principle the Fine Gael amendments which seemed to meet the requirements of most sides in the House. The Labour Party had readily undertaken to take on board amendments at a later stage. It would appear that the Minister in his appointment of the committee has narrowed the terms of reference under section 2. For that reason the Minister has lost a great opportunity to meet the requirements of the Bill in a very real way and because of that restriction it is now necessary to press our amendments and follow through if necessary to support the Bill produced by the Labour Party. This is simply the result of the restriction under section 2 of the terms of reference. We have no quibble whatsoever with Judge Frank Martin who is renowned in his profession. We have every confidence in his ability to do his job but we must point out that the terms of reference will restrict the ambit of inquiry of that commission to such an extent as to make the Minister's response unacceptable.

I would like to take this opportunity of thanking each of the Deputies who have contributed to this debate. There were many points made in the debate with which I, for obvious reasons, do not agree. However, I certainly respect the sincerity of the contributions that were made in the course of this debate over two weeks with the exception, that is, of one rather unfortunate remark from Deputy O'Dea but given the snide nature of that remark I do not think it even warrants comment on my part.

Perhaps I should be complacent and satisfied with the response given by the Minister for Justice but I find it very hard to be satisfied on this occasion. Perhaps there is some good news in that at least we will be back before this House within a matter of months looking at the whole question of criminal law, the law of evidence and trial procedures. There is no guarantee in relation to that but certainly there is an aspiration in that direction.

Perhaps the Minister can justify coming half way to meet the demands of the Labour Party Bill. Perhaps there is also truth in the adage that a week is a long time in politics. The Minister who gave a very detailed statement to the House on Tuesday of last week seemed to express enormous generosity and enormous zeal for law reform, so much so that certainly in my discussions with people in the profession over the weekend I got the impression that they thought we had a new Minister for Justice in Deputy Burke. Deputy Burke will accept that he would not, in the past, have been renowned for law reform or for aspirations in that direction but I think people genuinely believed, in relation to his contribution in this House at the opening of this debate last week that he was determined to grasp the opportunity the Bill presented to him to look at the whole situation in relation to the aspects outlined in the Bill. He himself said, as most speakers who contributed to this debate have said, that there is absolutely no room for complacency in relation to the items covered by the Criminal Justice Bill, 1989 presented by me in this House. I certainly believe that if we wish not to be complacent we should have taken the opportunity presented by the Bill.

The Minister has attempted to come half way, obviously under tremendous restraint within the Department of Justice in relation to what he has done. I commend the Minister for the fact that there is a deadline in regard to the report which will emanate from the commission. The fact that it will be published is worthy of commendation. Unfortunately, given the terms of reference, particularly the second term of reference in relation to convictions on the basis of uncorroborated confessions obtained in police custody, it would appear to unduly hinder the group of experts. That is unfortunately a retrograde step in relation to the opportunity that is before this House to tackle the question of the obtaining of convictions on uncorroborated evidence. It is regrettable that the Minister had not been more open-minded and at least allowed the group of experts to report back to us and not fettered by the term of reference, as the Minister outlined to me this afternoon, that it will still remain possible to secure a conviction on the basis of uncorroborated confessions. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not leave it to the group of experts to make recommendation on that aspect.

An opportunity has been missed in relation to the group of experts because in his contribution last week the Minister outlined that he would be looking for a group of experts with relevant experience in these areas of law. Unfortunately the committee is not broad based, whatever one might try to say about it. Sadly, the criminal Bar is not represented on the committee. This is a grave error of judgment because anybody in this House or legal circles will accept that we have at the Irish Bar practitioners who can hold their own with practitioners in criminal law the world over. Other than the judge himself, who is a former practitioner, there is not a practitioner who has appeared either before the Central Criminal Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal. We are lacking the breadth of vision that this committee would certainly need. In that respect it is unbalanced. It is very unfortunate that the opportunity this Bill presented was not grasped.

I was prompted originally, with the assistance of my colleagues in the Labour Party, to put this Bill before this House by the experience of the Guildford Four case. Everybody in this country by now knows the facts of that case so obviously it is not necessary to reiterate them. Suffice it to say that we learned from that case that miscarriages of justice can and do happen in one of the most sophistiated criminal justice systems in the world, the UK system. If that is true, as we know it to be, we here cannot close our eyes to the possibility that the same deficiencies exist in our system to allow miscarriages of justice to take place. Obvously we cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot turn aside from the task of addressing those deficiencies with all the urgency at our command.

Some people were of the view that this is an anti-Garda Bill. I certainly would like to put it on the record of the House that this is not an anti-Garda Bill. If anything it is totally misconstruing the Bill to interpret it in that way. For my part and for the part of the Labour Party, nothing could be further from the truth. We have here a police force of which I believe we can be truly proud and no greater tribute can be paid to them at present than that their expertise is being employed in Namibia, a country in deep trouble. That is fitting tribute to our gardaí and obviously it is a reflection of the standing in which they are held on the world stage. The reality of the Guildford Four case was that the pressure of inflamed public opinion following a major atrocity was sufficient to inspire a conspiracy which reached several levels of the system of administering justice and that conspiracy resulted in the loss of liberty for 15 years for four innocent people.

I listened to the Minister last week in this House and later that evening I heard him on television speaking in relation to the many matters of justice that were being discussed. I did feel at that time that he was going to grasp the opportunity which presented itself. Unfortunately that is not to be the case and, obviously, the Labour Party cannot withdraw the Bill before the House tonight. In relation to the amendment put forward by Fine Gael I felt at the time it was put on the Floor of the House and described by Deputy O'Keeffe; that it lacked a certain degree of urgency but when I am faced with a choice between the Minister's expert committee and the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Keeffe it certainly brings to mind the work that the Law Reform Commission have done for this country in the last number of years. That work has been excellent in its content and in its research and as a valuable facility for updating the laws here. In the present situation the Law Reform Commission would perhaps present us with a far more comprehensive review of the matters under discussion in the Criminal Justice Bill, 1989.

In that respect I would say to the House that I will support the Fine Gael amendment as opposed to what the Minister is suggesting. It is regrettable that the Minister could not take the opportunity to give us a broader committee with more unfettered terms of reference. In what he has done today in relation to restrictive terms of reference, in relation to what I would see as a non-representative group of experts, the Minister has fallen far short of what he outlined to the House and what looked like being a positive contribution to this debate on Tuesday of last week. I regret that the Minister seems to have lost the initiative, whatever happened in the past seven days. It is regrettable and I believe it is a missed opportunity.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 68.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Today.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenncally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67 67; Níl, 67.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Today.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Ferris; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.

As there is an equality of votes, pursuant to Article 15.11.2º of the Constitution, I have a casting vote and I am required by the Constitution to exercise that vote. I exercise it against the question and declare the question lost.

Top
Share