I move amendment No. 9:
In page 16, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"22.—(1) Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 are hereby repealed.
(2) Where an accused person is before the District Court charged with an indictable offence the Judge shall, not later than the second appearance by the accused person before the court in respect of that charge, conduct an examination into whether the case is one which will be tried on indictment or by summary hearing.
(3) If, on the conclusion of the examination, the Judge is satisfied that the case must be heard on indictment (by reason of the election of the accused or the prosecutor in accordance with law or by reason of a finding that the offence is not a minor offence fit to be tried summarily) he shall forthwith send the accused person forward to the appropriate court for trial.
(4) A case which has been sent forward to the appropriate court for trial pursuant to, subsection (3) of this section shall be listed for mention before the court of trial not later than 14 days from the date of the District Court order returning the accused person for trial.
(5) On the date upon which the case is first listed for mention before the court of trial, or on a subsequent date not later than 28 days from the date on which the case was first listed for mention before the court of trial, the prosecutor shall cause the documents specified in section 6 of this Act to be served on the accused.
(6) The prosecutor shall cause the following documents to be served on the accused—
(a) a statement of the charges against him,
(b) a copy of any sworn information in writing upon which the proceedings were initiated,
(c) a list of witnesses whom it is proposed to call at the trial,
(d) a statement of the evidence that is to be given by each of them,
(e) a list of exhibits (if any).
(7) Copies of the documents shall also be furnished to the Court.
(8) The accused shall have the right to inspect all exhibits.
(9) A prosecutor may cause to be served on the accused and furnished to the Court, not later than 7 days before the date for trial, or if after 7 days before the trial not without the leave of the Court granted after hearing an application by the prosecutor grounded on affidavit setting out the reason why the evidence was not previously served, a further statement of the evidence to be given by any witness a statement of whose evidence has already been supplied.
(10) On the hearing of an application of the type mentioned in subsection (9) of this section, the Court shall not grant leave to serve the further statement of evidence unless it is satisfied that there is a good and substantial reason as to why the evidence could not have been served earlier and that the interest of justice requires that the evidence be allowed.
(11) Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 is hereby amended in subsection (3) by the substitution of the following for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c):
`by notice served by the prosecutor on the accused at the time of service of the documents required by section 15 (6) of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996.'.
(12) Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (6):
`(6) A notice under subsection (1) shall be given in writing to the solicitor for the prosecutor.'.
(13) Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 is hereby amended in subsection (8) by the substitution of the following for paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the definition of `prescribed period':
`the period of 14 days from the service of the documents required by section 15 (6) of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996 on the accused person.'.
(14) (a) A trial of any offence specified in the Table to this section shall commence not later than 90 days from the date of the accused person's first appearance before the District Court unless a Judge of the High Court grants an extension of that period on the hearing of an application by either the prosecutor or the accused.
(b) On the hearing of any application for an extension of the time within which a trial must commence the High Court Judge shall not grant an extension unless he is satisfied by evidence presented on affidavit, or orally if directed by the Judge, that there is a good and substantial reason as to why the extension should be granted and that the interests of justice require that such an extension be granted.
(c) No extension granted on the hearing of an application under paragraph (b) of this section shall be for a period greater than 30 days.
(d) Either the prosecutor or the accused may make more than one application under paragraph (b) of this section.
(15) Either the prosecutor or the accused may, in respect of any case which has been returned for trial to a Circuit Criminal Court, apply to the High Court for an order directing the transfer of that trial from the Circuit Criminal Court to the Central Criminal Court.
(16) At the hearing of an application made under subsection (15) of this section the High Court shall not make an order transferring the case for trial unless it is satisfied that, by reason of the seriousness and complexity of the charge or by reason of there being a substantial point of law of public importance involved in the case, the interests of justice require that the trial be held before the Central Criminal Court.
TABLE
OFFENCES TO WHICH SECTION 22(14) RELATES
1. Rape
2. Rape contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990.
3. Aggravated sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990.
4. Robbery contrary to section 23 of the Larceny Act, 1916 as inserted by section 5 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976.
5. Possession of a controlled drug for the purposes of sale or supply contrary to section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 and 1984.".
The purpose of this amendment is to amend criminal procedure to provide that in future there would no longer be preliminary examinations. To this extent, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, would be repealed.
There is unanimity among those who are for and against the bail referendum that there is a need for speedier criminal trials and that, in general terms, the best way of going about this would be to abolish the concept of preliminary examinations which are cumbersome. They lead to individuals literally snaking through the criminal justice system before finally reaching the court of trial and are expensive.
It is difficult to believe, as we approach the end of the 20th century, that an accused person is entitled to insist at a preliminary examination that all the evidence is taken down in longhand by the District Court clerk. This procedure is not appropriate to a modern criminal justice system and the time has come for change.
This is set out in the amendment which provides that "where an accused person is before the District Court charged with an indictable offence the judge shall, not later than the second appearance by the accused person before the court in respect of that charge, conduct an examination into whether the case is one which will be tried on indictment or by summary hearing". Having satisfied himself that the case should be heard on indictment the judge would be obliged to return the individual for trial. At present the judge must be satisfied that everything contained in the Book of Evidence would, if accepted by the jury, entitle it to convict the individual of the offences as charged. He is then obliged to return the individual for trial.
The usefulness of the preliminary examination system is best decided by looking at the statistics. In 1995 the preliminary examination procedure was followed in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court in 673 cases, of which only seven were discharged at the preliminary examination stage. On these figures nobody could make a credible argument for retention of the system. The Minister for Justice stated that she had referred the matter to a committee which was to meet again on 18 October. I do not know what the result of its deliberations was but this system has to end.
In recent times a question was put to the Minister regarding the number of persons charged with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 and 1984 in respect of whom orders of discharge were made by the Dublin Metropolitan District Court following the conduct of a preliminary examination. The Minister stated in reply that in 1995 no orders of discharge were made by that court following the conduct of a preliminary examination in cases involving persons charged with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 and 1984.
It is clear that in only a minuscule number of cases a court discharges a case at preliminary examination stage. In virtually all cases where the preliminary examination procedure is invoked the District Courts are satisfied that there is a prima facie case. There is no cogent reason I can think of or which has been put forward since I initiated this debate on behalf of Fianna Fáil for retention of the system.
The preliminary examination system only serves to delay criminal trials; involves expense, which is sometimes considerable, to the State through the legal aid scheme and is often used by ruthless criminals to ensure that the day of reckoning — the day of sentence — is postponed. It appears that the people are not well served by this procedure. The victims of crime do not applaud it as being of any use to them. The question can be raised as to whether it serves the criminal justice system or criminals as we approach the end of the millennium. It is, to say the least, a nonsense.
There is an onus on the Government to act in this matter and to get rid of an arcane procedure which does nothing to edify the criminal justice system. Nobody would believe it is still permissible for an accused person to insist that depositions in the District Court are taken down in longhand. That is a nonsense and a joke and reflects badly on the system. Those who favour its retention do not serve the cause that they expect us to believe they espouse.
The public have become extremely cynical about delays in criminal trials. They are outraged that it can take so long for justice to be done in what are often extremely serious cases. There is considerable truth in the proposition that the reason we have never got around to changing our criminal procedure and speeding up trials is that we do not have sufficient prison places. For a considerable period I have advocated that this policy be reversed. If we are to have a modern, coherent criminal justice system, more than the change in our bail laws will be required. There is an urgent need to speed up criminal trials and to dispense with procedures which clearly belong to another age. This amendment does that. It abolishes the notion of preliminary examinations and provides for the service of documents on the accused person as befits a modern criminal justice system.
There are no faults of any real import with the amendment as drafted and in those circumstances I cannot think of any good reason it should not be accepted, but since the Minister has already indicated on Committee Stage that she will not be disposed to accepting the amendment at this stage, it behoves me to ask her the reason for that decision.
Whenever it comes to the reform of the criminal justice system, certainly over the past two years, the Trappist monks of the rainbow Coalition, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare, appear to exercise a veto. On this occasion I do not believe that even these men of sackcloth and ashes could possibly object to an amendment which would bring our procedures into line with many other modern jurisdictions. No so-called civil libertarian principle can be advanced against the proposition put forward, unlike the bail referendum issue when so-called civil libertarian principles were put forward by the same two gentlemen against the concept of a referendum, which principles were scattered to the four winds this year for reasons best known to the two of them. The fact that there was ultimately a scramble to get on board the referendum shuttle is a matter——
