Vol. 404 No. 6
23 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline the latest position in relation to the Government's consideration of the report of the Martin Committee which was published in March, 1990; if the consideration has yet been completed; if any preliminary conclusions have been reached; if any timetable has been set for implementation of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
141 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice his views on whether procedures should be established whereby persons who have been convicted of criminal offences and who have exhausted the normal appeals procedures can have alleged miscarriages of justice further reviewed; and if he will outline his proposals in this regard.
I propose to take priority Question No. 23 and Question No. 141 together.
The Martin Committee report is divided into two distinct parts, corresponding to its terms of reference.
Part I of the report deals with the situation where substantial doubt existed as to the propriety of a conviction. This part of the report raises important issues concerning the respective functions, under the Constitution, of the Executive and the Judiciary and these require careful consideration.
With regard to Part II of the report, the committee's recommendation that the questioning of suspects in Garda stations should take place before an audio-visual recording device, is being examined by my Department and the Garda authorities, with particular regard to the question of introducing this arrangement on a pilot basis in selected stations, as envisaged by the committee.
Does the Minister not agree that it is regrettable and a poor reflection on his office that he has not yet reported progress on the implementation of the Martin Committee report when that committee responded speedily within six months to his request for a report? With regard to the establishment of an independent body of inquiry, as recommended by the committee, does the Minister not agree that the report made all the necessary recommendations on the establishment of such a body? Secondly, in regard to the question——
I must advise the Deputy that time in respect of priority questions is fast running out.
Does the Minister agree that the proposal in regard to a pilot scheme of video recordings which has been under active consideration in his Department since 1984, when it was included in legislation; should have been implemented by now, 12 months after the publication of the report?
In relation to the first part of the Deputy's question, I do not accept that there has been any undue delay in regard to this report. My priority is to get the right response to the recommendations rather than one which could have unforeseen consequences on public confidence in the court system. I can assure the Deputy that the matter is under active consideration and that there will be no undue delay.
In regard to the pilot scheme of questioning suspects in Garda stations before an audio-visual recording device, every pilot scheme has financial and staffing implications. Other matters include the types of offences to be covered by video recordings, the amendment of judges rules, the possible need for regulations in relation to the storage of video tapes and the selection of Garda districts for the purposes of introducing such a pilot scheme. All of these matters are being considered and I can assure the Deputy that action will be taken in the near future in relation to them.
The time for dealing with priority questions is now exhausted. I have given Deputy Gregory permission to raise a Private Notice Question.
On a point of order, may I ask you to bring to the notice of the chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the fact that Question No. 24 has been excluded——
The Deputy or his representative on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges may take appropriate action in that regard. Will Deputy Gregory please state his question?
