Vol. 432 No. 5
2 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Justice if she was consulted in advance before the Garda Commissioner recently issued instructions in relation to new procedures which are to be followed when persons are arrested; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
21 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Justice if she was consulted in advance before the Garda Commissioner recently issued instructions in relation to new procedures which are to be followed when persons are arrested; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 21 together.
There has been widespread comment in recent times on this subject and I think it appropriate to make a full statement on it. In the first place, a distinction has to be drawn between serious indictable crime and minor crime of a non indictable nature.
With regard to indictable crime, the Garda Commissioner issued directions to the Force in November, 1992 following advice he received from the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the preferral of charges and summonses. The DPP was concerned to ensure that charges would not be preferred in a case until the relevant investigation has been completed, so as to avoid problems which can arise if charges are preferred prematurely.
The matters which particularly concerned the DPP were that a premature charge could result in an injustice to the accused if fresh evidence, hitherto unchecked, comes to light which casts doubts on the guilt of the accused or even shows him to be innocent, and also that the preferring of a charge effectively puts the accused out of reach of further investigation and questioning, therefore reducing the chances of procuring further evidence. What the implementation of the Garda Commissioner's directions means is that the final decision on the nature of the charges to be preferred, and whether to proceed by way of charge or summons, is deferred pending completion of the investigation and consideration of the matter by the DPP.
At this point it is important that I emphasise that the DPP is by statute responsible for the prosecution of criminal offences and that prosecutions are initiated by the Garda Síochána acting on his advice. As the DPP is independent in the exercise of his functions, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any advice given by him in relation to the initiation of prosecutions, or to expect to be consulted about the matter in advance.
It is clearly in the interests of justice that successful prosecutions are brought particularly in cases of serious offences and the procedures contained in the Garda Commissioner's circular, based on the advice of the DPP, addresses this issue. While stressing the independence of the DPP and not wishing to comment on specific advice given by him, I think the House will recognise that he is uniquely placed when it comes to assessing what procedures are most likely to secure the best results when it comes to the prosecution of crime. Nobody wants to see serious cases thrown out of court because of procedural defects.
In so far as less serious offences are concerned — the bulk of offences fall into this category — there are no new instructions. There are, however, instructions from Garda Headquarters, dating from 1989, concerning the day-to-day procedures to be adopted in the Dublin Metropolitan Area relating to the processing of summary offences, and minor indictable offences which would not normally require directions from the DPP. The instruction is that such offences should be brought before the court by summons rather than by a charge procedure, except in cases where the defendant's name and address are not known, cannot be ascertained, or there are good grounds for believing that the person arrested would not appear on summons. I want to stress that these instructions apply to the Dublin area only.
No Garda instructions have issued about the procedures to be followed in the case of minor offences since I came into office. The question of my being consulted in advance of any such instructions did not therefore arise.
As to the practical results of the recent change in procedure, I think it fair to say that there is a share of misunderstanding and indeed misinformation. The impression is that under the old system the suspect was immediately brought to court, charged, convicted and thereby put out of business as far as criminal activity is concerned, whereas under the new procedure he or she is simply released back on to the streeets to continue with criminal pursuits. The reality is that under the old system the defendant was almost invariably released on bail. It is only on the very rare occasions that a case is dealt with on first appearance.
In other words, the end result under either procedure is that the defendant/suspect is back on the streets pending final determination of the case by the courts. I accept of course the point that the control implicit in release on bail is not there and that views have been expressed also concerning delays in the summons procedure. My Department has been in contact with the Garda Commissioner and the DPP's office concerning these and other aspects of the matter — contacts of this nature are part of normal routine — and I can assure the House that all aspects of the new procedure will be kept under close scrutiny by them. If any changes are deemed necessary they will naturally be made.
This procedure does, of course, result in loss of earnings for some gardaí and legal aid lawyers. Such loss would arise especially where the initial court appearance, for example, happened to coincide with a garda's scheduled rest day when an appearance would carry a significant overtime payment.
It is necessary, before I conclude, to point to one very valuable result of the new procedure, which is that it has the very positive effect of getting gardaí away from the chore of waiting about in court rooms and on to the streets where their services are badly needed for the prevention and detection of crime.
Will the Minister accept that this circular, whatever about its intentions, is being interpreted in such a way that people believe that all criminals are released following arrest and questioning? Will she agree that this is bringing the enforcement of law and order into total disrepute and making a joke of it? Is the Minister aware that gardaí were quoted in the media yesterday as saying that they are aware of people being brought into Garda stations six and seven times in a short period of time? The circular states, "The general rule should be that a charge should not be preferred——
I would like to assist Deputy Harney in eliciting information, but quotations at Question Time are not in order.
Would the Minister agree that the circular, by underlining the relevant passage, makes it clear that its provisions will apply in all cases? Will she accept that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, which allowed courts impose consecutive sentences on those who committed offences while on bail, cannot now be enforced and that it is a joke that a person who commits further crimes while on bail cannot now be given consecutive sentences because of the summons procedure?
The directions of the Garda Commissioner issued in November 1992 to the force and media and public comment by members of the Garda and others have been a source of concern to my Department. My Department has been in touch with the Garda Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the aspects of concern which have been raised publicly. The Deputy can be assured that if the Garda authorities and the Director of Public Prosecutions believe it is necessary to relax the directions given, it will be a matter for the Garda Commissioner and I am sure he will take on board the concerns expressed publicly.
The question of consecutive sentencing is under continuous review and any changes which make it difficult for the court are taken into account in the course of the examination of the present procedure.
In the light of the concern expressed by a large cross-section of the Garda Síochána and the legal profession, will the Minister consider having discussions with the Garda Commissioner on that matter?
The indication I gave that my Department is discussing the matter with the Garda Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions should be sufficient for the Deputy to realise that as a result of such discussions the Garda Commissioner will initiate change if necessary.
We shall now proceed to other questions.
On a point of order, one reply from the Minister yesterday took nine minutes and we have only two priority questions today because others were ruled out of order. However, we must consider if 20 minutes is sufficient to deal with Priority Questions because it is not possible to tease out subsequent questions.
I note what the Deputy has said and I have commented on that matter recently.
On a point of order, five of my questions were ruled out of order and I accept your ruling on that, Sir. However, I protest strongly that you ruled out of order a question which is clearly in order relating to the alteration of arrangements for gardaí on Presidential duties. I want to put on the record my strong protest in that regard. The Minister has responsibility to this House and Members look to you, Sir, to defend our rights in the House. I speak on behalf of more than 50 Members of the House.
The Deputy may not challenge my ruling in this fashion, but as he has adverted to the matter I assure him that the question to which he refers was ruled out of order for the usual cogent reasons. The Deputy should resume his seat. The Deputy's question involved the Office of the Presidency. I would remind him and the House that it is a long standing rule of the Dáil that the President should be outside and above ordinary debate in this House and that the office of the President should not become a subject of controversy in the House. The disallowance of the Deputy's question in this instance was in strict accord with long standing precedent.
Deputy G. Mitchell rose.
I will hear no more about it now, Deputy.
Under the Constitution the Minister for Justice is required to answer to this House and the Garda are not subject to the President but to the Minister for Justice. I depend on you to defend my rights, not to interfere with them. I protest strongly.
I resent the implication.
You leave me no option but to put on the record of this House that I depend on you to defend my rights in this House, not to give them away in this manner.
Deputy Mitchell, you have reflected upon the Chair despite the explanation I have given. I must ask you now to retract that statement or leave the House.
I will leave the House. I am disgusted at your behaviour.
Leave the House then, Deputy, and furthermore, I am sorry that I gave an explanation at all; I am not bound to.
You are not bound to but I am bound to speak here for the members of my party.
Leave the House, Deputy, or I will name you.
I will certainly leave the House. I have made my protest. I have made my point, and in future I expect you to defend my rights.
Deputy, please do not reflect on the Chair any more or I will name you.
