Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Apr 1997

Vol. 477 No. 7

Bail Bill, 1997: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, subsection (3). line 43, after "person" to insert "and shall discharge any order made under subsection (2) and release any security accepted by the court under that subsection".

This is a technical amendment. Section 5(2) allows a court to accept certain securities with regard to bail money. Where that involves a bank, building society, credit union or post office deposit, the court can make an order requiring the financial institution concerned not to permit the moneys which they hold on behalf of the person in question to be reduced by a specified amount.

Section 5(3) deals generally with the return of bail money once the case has been disposed of and the conditions attached to the granting of bail have been met. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that when a case has been disposed of, any security lodged under section 5(2) can be returned and any order to a financial institution revoked. The amendment corrects an omission.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

Amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, subsection (1)(a), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(iii) require the accused person to enter into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and to abstain from any form of criminal activity (including the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 — 1984) for the duration of the case,".

Section 6(1)(a) states:

Where an accused person is admitted to bail on his or her entering into a recognisance, the recognisance shall, in addition to the condition requiring his or her appearance before the court at the end of the period of the remand of the accused person, be subject to the following conditions—

The first condition is that the accused shall not commit any offence and the second is that the accused shall otherwise be of good behaviour. The amendment would require the accused person to enter into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour but also to abstain from any form of criminal activity, including the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984, for the duration of the case.

Section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, states that, subject to section 3 (3) and section 4 (3) of that Act, a person shall not have a controlled drug in his possession. A person who has a controlled drug in his possession in contravention of section 3 (1) shall be guilty of an offence. The Minister may, by order, declare that section 3(1) shall not apply to a controlled drug specified in the order and, for so long as an order under that subsection is in force, the prohibition contained in subsection (1) shall not apply to a drug which is a controlled drug specified in the order.

This provision gives statutory effect to the fact that there is no constitutional right to possess and consume illegal drugs. The amendment would also give statutory effect to that position. Amendment No. 5 provides for the monitoring of accused persons to ensure compliance with the terms of their bail. At present, there is little or no incentive or direction by the courts, because of legislative voids, to ensure that drug addicts who are guilty of serious crimes undergo treatment.

Amendment No. 2 suggests that if an individual comes before the court and is granted bail, the court, if it deems it necessary, could make an order, as a condition of the person's bail, that he or she must abstain from the possession of illegal drugs. The amendment is bolstered by amendment No. 5 under which the person would be required to attend a designated location on specified days for the purpose of providing a urine sample which could be analysed in order to ascertain whether the accused was in breach of the condition specified in amendment No. 2 by consuming a controlled drug other than a drug prescribed by a registered medical practitioner as part of recognised drug treatment course.

The twin objectives are to prevent the individual consuming illegal drugs, if that is possible, while also ensuring that he or she receives treatment for his or her addiction. It would be a condition, as set out in amendment No. 6, that the court would inform the accused person of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre for drug addiction. If such a request was made by the individual, an appointment would be made for them. If a condition of a person's bail was that he or she refrained from using or possessing illegal drugs, pursuant to section 3 of the 1977 Act, there would be a large incentive for the individual to undergo treatment.

Modern criminal legislation should recognise what is happening on the streets and the reality that the vast majority of crime is committed by habitual drug addicts. Society has failed to recognise that reality. Some people believe that 80 per cent of the crime committed in Dublin is drug related. That is an extremely high percentage but if one accepts that figure, the law must reflect that problem and suggest remedies. Experience shows that the prison route alone in relation to offenders who are drug addicts is unsuccessful. Therefore, the system must be changed and in this context, as I have repeatedly said, a drug treatment detention unit is required.

Our laws do not reflect the drug-related crime problem and the amendment does little more than recognise reality. It innovatively links the solving of the crime problem, in so far as that can be achieved, to the solving of an individual's drug addiction. The amendments attempt to protect society from criminality, which is a superior obligation, while at the same time vindicating the addict's right to bodily integrity. The amendments balance the scales and their objectives can be achieved in the context of an individual being granted bail provided these conditions are accepted. Nowhere in our criminal law is there a recognition of the necessity to put treatment on a statutory footing. This has to be done because, in the final analysis, all the criminal sanctions in the world will not lessen the number of crimes committed in society, unless we lessen the number of habitual drug users. The sooner we face this fact the better.

These amendments would be a small step along the road to realising the objectives to which I referred. I am not so naive as to believe they would help in a major way to resolve the problem but I am conscious that they would help along the way and anything that does that should be seriously considered by the Government. They have not been plucked out of the air, they were included in the Fianna Fáil Criminal Law (Bail) Bill, 1995, the vast majority of which has been included in this Bill. There is no reason I can think of for their exclusion. I recommend that they be accepted.

Ms O'Donnell

I support the objectives and reasons given by Deputy O'Donoghue in support of his worthy amendments which properly highlight the necessary interface between the criminal justice system and the health services in tackling the problem of drug addiction. On any day of the week crowds of young people turn up at the Dublin District Courts to face charges and, inevitably, they are granted bail. This presents the State with an ideal opportunity to make a critical intervention by directing young people with a drug addiction towards drug rehabilitation programmes.

This is the kind of amendment which causes difficulties in terms of departmental responsibilities. While the Minister for Justice is responsible, in dealing with this category of offender, for the criminal justice aspects, her colleague, the Minister for Health, and the Eastern Health Board, the statutory agency involved, are responsible for providing the necessary health services. This is a cumbersome arrangement and we have not yet managed to dovetail their activities.

I suggested in an amendment to the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill that assets seized under the Bill, particularly from those involved in organised crime, should be ploughed back into drug rehabilitation programmes. That would be a fair and reasonable approach to take but I was informed in reply to a parliamentary question as recently as last week that, because of the way the Department of Finance organises its business, it is not possible to do this, even though it would make perfect sense. All assets seized have to be placed in the maw of the Department of Finance before being allocated to various Departments, including the Department of Health.

When a young drug addict turns up at the courts is there a better opportunity for the State and the health authorities to make the vital connection and to grant bail on condition that he or she receives treatment for drug addiction? It is reckless to grant bail to young drug addicts with no obvious means of support knowing that they must reoffend to feed their habit. As things stand, the health authorities cannot move in to help them to overcome their addiction.

Mrs. Owen

I fully accept Deputy O'Donoghue's motives and bone fides in tabling these amendments but — Deputy O'Donnell touched on this point — a bail hearing is not the appropriate time to decide how people can be helped to overcome a drug habit as there is a danger that their drug addiction could be criminalised. They are before the judge because the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that they have a case to answer in respect of a serious offence such as murder, rape or mugging. The matters to be considered by the courts in deciding whether a person should be refused bail are set out in the Bill. In refusing bail, however, a judge may take the person's drug addiction into consideration.

Amendment No. 2 seems to be superfluous and would cause confusion. Section 6(1) (a) states that a recognisance should include the condition that an accused person shall not commit any offence and shall otherwise be of good behaviour. However, the amendment includes a specific reference to the commission of an offence under a specific section of a specific Act, that is, section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984. As the Bill refers to the commission of any offence, it is all encompassing. It would make no sense, therefore, to mention a specific offence. Why mention drug offences and not murder? Inclusion of the amendment would not make this a better Bill.

All three amendments stem from Deputy O'Donoghue's approach to dealing with drug problems. Regardless of the merits of his amendment, this is not the appropriate Bill to deal with this matter. We are not dealing in the Bill with drug addiction, we are dealing with the right to bail in very specific circumstances of a person alleged to have committed a serious offence. This matter could more appropriately be dealt with by way of an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, or in a Bill dealing with sentencing policy. If we were to allow a court to deal with this matter it would have to bring in health workers, counsellors and a plethora of other people to decide the extent of the addiction and what is causing it.

I understand Deputy O'Donoghue's point but it is not appropriate to deal with this matter in the Bill as we could end up criminalising drug addiction. The Bill deals with people who are alleged to have committed serious offences, not their addiction. There may well be a case for providing a wider range of sanctions when sentencing a person with a drug addiction for a particular crime. In cases where a judge decides that drug addiction is a serious element in the crime committed by a person he should have more sentencing options available to him. I am looking seriously at this matter and have stated publicly that the time has come to provide under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, a drug treatment facility to which courts can send people. We were ahead of our time in including this provision in the 1977 Act as the number of people with a serious drug addiction coming before the courts at that time was small. However, in view of the increase in the number of people with a drug addiction coming before the courts I will push strongly on our return to office after the general election to have this matter dealt with.

The proposals in Deputy O'Donoghue's amendments are inappropriate and would give rise to substantial technical problems. As the relatives of drug addicts know, dealing with the problem of addiction is very difficult. The complexities of drug addiction would not be appropriately addressed in a Bill dealing with bail.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Minister said it would be extraordinary if a court decided it should impose a condition on a person being granted bail in, say, a murder case that he should not commit an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977. However, she then said there was no need for my amendment as section 6 provides that one condition of bail is that the accused person must not commit an offence and that as it is already an offence to possess illegal drugs there is no need to specify this in the Bill. While these statements are contradictory, I accept the Bill provides that an accused person must not commit an offence while on bail. Perhaps I should have tabled an amendment similar to my amendment No. 2 which would have proposed the deletion of section (1) (a) (i) and required the accused person to enter into a bond to keep the peace, be of good behaviour and to abstain from any form of criminal activity, including the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984, for the duration of the case. I included the reference to the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984, in amendment No. 2 for the purpose of emphasis as I accepted that the commission of a criminal offence would obviously be prohibited as a condition of bail.

Murder and rape are horrific crimes but the reality is that many hidden crimes are not reported. Ordinary citizens are plagued by the threat of having their cars stolen or broken into or their houses burgled while they are away for a weekend, while newsagents and the owners of other shops are afraid of nightly attacks by thugs on their premises. Many of the individuals who commit these offences are addicted to hard drugs. If we recognise that this is the truth then we must also recognise the need to deal with the issue.

The Bill, which is copied from the Fianna Fáil Criminal Law (Bail) Bill, 1995, provides that the court must take into account certain circumstances in exercising its jurisdiction. These include the nature and degree of the seriousness of the offence with which the accused person is charged and the sentence likely to be imposed on conviction. The Bill also states that the court can take into account that an accused person is addicted to a controlled drug within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977.

If a judge believes that the nature and degree of the seriousness of the offence are not such that he should refuse bail, and that the offence is a lesser one, then it appears he could not refuse bail on the basis that the individual concerned was addicted to a controlled drug within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977. This means that a person charged before a court with, say, a minor burglary who is also a drug addict would get bail.

Mrs. Owen

Not necessarily.

Mr. O'Donoghue

It is probable that such an individual would commit another offence. In those circumstances it should be the statutory duty of the court to minimise the risk to society from that individual. The best way of doing this is to put in place a mechanism whereby the individual can be encouraged to undergo treatment. For example, the individual could be required by the court to attend a designated location on specified days for the purposes of providing a urine sample which could be analysed to ascertain whether he had committed an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, which relates to the possession of drugs. Obviously, if the individual consumed a controlled drug, he or she would have been in possession of it. That would not require a panel of exports coming into the court or, to use the Minister's phrase, clogging up the system. The judge would merely ask the individual to go to a designated location so that an analysis could be carried out as to whether the individual was guilty of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977.

The next amendment states that the court would inform the accused person of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre for drug addiction and arrange for the Probation and Welfare Service to make an appointment at that centre for the accused person. That is not imposing any great burden on the individual before the court or criminalising consumption. Far from it, it is encouraging the individual towards treatment, and we must do that in our criminal legislation. We must also recognise that the Ireland of today is not the Ireland of 30 years ago, and it never again will be.

If we are to contain the drugs problem, let alone resolve it, we will have to recognise in criminal legislation the position on the streets. These amendments merely recognise that reality and ensure that an individual before a court who is a drug addict and who is granted bail will take steps to obtain treatment for that addiction. The individual who is addicted to hard drugs is entitled to that under our Constitution so that the individual's right to bodily integrity can be vindicated. Society is entitled to expect the Oireachtas to protect it from criminality. Those twin objectives can be achieved if the Minister accepts my amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

With regard to amendment No. 2, I accept that matter is already covered in section 6 (1) (a). The other two matters are not covered, however, and while I will not press amendment No. 2, I am firmly of the view that amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are not draconian and that they serve a valid and laudable purpose — protecting society from criminality and vindicating the addict's right to bodily integrity. They are worthy of support.

Mrs. Owen

I have already outlined the reason I do not think this is an appropriate vehicle to do what Deputy O'Donoghue is trying to do in his amendments. I am glad he accepts that his first amendment is superfluous and would cause confusion. I accept Deputy O'Donoghue's bona fides in regard to his amendments Nos. 5 and 6, but he is regarding a bail hearing as an opportunity to intervene where someone has a drug problem. Amendment No. 6 requires that the court informs specified persons of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre and direct the probation and welfare officer to make an appointment for the accused if the accused so requests. The measure is dependent, therefore, upon the accused making a request.

We are really talking about a court exercising criminal jurisdiction. I am aware that, from time to time, judges intervene to help an accused when they are in the process of trying a case, the end result of which might be the imposition of a sentence. In this case, however, we are talking about a bail hearing. Deputy O'Donoghue outlined a range of criminal activities which are unacceptable in our society, but this Bill is being introduced to ensure such people do not get bail. There are sufficient clauses in the legislation to allow a judge to determine that people such as those referred to by Deputy O'Donoghue, who may have intimidated a shopkeeper with perhaps the use of a syringe, should be refused bail because all the indicators suggest such people will commit a similar crime if released on bail. Under this legislation, the bulk of the people to whom the Deputy referred will be those to whom judges will refuse bail.

In this case we are talking about circumstances in which a judge might be inclined to refuse to grant bail. The effect of the amendment would be to turn a bail application hearing into some sort of referral centre for drug treatment. Perhaps that should be reflected more in our laws but it is not appropriate in this legislation, and it will cause confusion if it is included. It is neither necessary nor appropriate. These are valid amendments that would be more appropriate to other criminal law on sentencing or in a health Act in regard to treatment for drug addicts. I urge the Deputy not to press the amendments because they are not appropriate to bail legislation. In addition, there would be certain problems with the wording. I ask the Deputy to accept my bona fides in this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 3 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 4 is an alternative. The suggestion is that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 be taken together.

Mrs. Owen

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, subsection (1) (b) (iii), line 18, after "possession" to insert "or, if he or she is not in possession of a passport or travel document, that he or she refrains from applying for a passport or travel document".

This amendment essentially meets the point put forward in Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment No. 4 but is more consistent with the other conditions set out in section 6 (1) (b) (iii) as drafted. The intention of both amendments is to supplement the existing condition in section 6(1)(b)(iii) in relation to an accused person surrendering any passport or travel document in his or her possession. While the general power contained in the section to attach such conditions as the court considers appropriate would likely cover the position, for the sake of completeness we are now adding a condition to the effect that, where a person does not have a passport or travel document, he or she will refrain from applying for one while on bail. The Deputy's amendment also refers to notification to be sent by a court to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have not had the opportunity in the time available to consult the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs about this, but I will discuss with him the additional administrative arrangements that might be made in this regard. In the circumstances and to ensure that there is no lacuna, I amendment No. 4 in the wording of the official amendment although it would be covered under section 6(1)(b)(iii).

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Minister for Justice has explained precisely the objective of this amendment. It is to ensure that an individual who does not have a passport would not be in a position to apply for one if the court granting bail required that to prevent the person absconding. My amendment also includes a requirement that the passport be surrendered to a specified member of the Garda Síochána. I understand the Minister's amendment to mean that it should be handed in to the court, and that is satisfactory.

I suggest also that notification of the undertakings should be sent by the court to the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure, if an individual did apply for a passport or for the renewal of a passport, that the Department would refuse to process it on the basis that that individual had been granted bail subject to a condition that he or she would not apply for a passport. I am satisfied with the Minister's amendment and her undertaking to discuss the matter with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, subsection (1)(b), between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"(vi) require the accused to attend at a designated location on specified days for the purpose of providing a urine sample which may be analysed in order to ascertain if the accused person has been in breach of paragraph (iii)* by consuming a controlled drug other than a drug prescribed by a registered medical practitioner as part of a recognised drug treatment course.".

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 68.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Kitt, Tom.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Keogh, Helen.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bree, Declan.
• Broughan, Thomas.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Derek.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Upton, Pat.
• Walsh, Éamon.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies Durkan and B. Fitzgerald.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

7.—Where, as part of an order admitting an accused person to bail, a Court makes an order pursuant to section 6(1)(b)(iii) and (vi) the Court shall inform the accused person of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre for drug addiction and, if requested by the person, shall direct the appropriate member of the Probation and Welfare Service attached to that Court to make an appointment at that centre for the accused person.".

Question, "That the new section be there inserted", put and declared lost.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I thank the Deputies who participated in this debate on the bail issue not only today but when we dealt with the referendum legislation and during the previous year when we dealt with the issue of bail. I am pleased that 32 years after the O'Callaghan judgement we have amended our bail laws by way of a referendum and legislation. We have done a good day's work for law abiding citizens and the victims of crime who have suffered at the hands of criminals in this State. This is a fair way to deal with bail. It is not easy for an Oireachtas to deprive people of their liberty, but there are times when the State must do so. The legislation is drafted in such a way that I hope it will be interpreted in an appropriate and humane manner by the judges who implement it.

Up to now many people received bail because only the fear of absconding or of interfering with witnesses could be used as reasons for refusing it. I want to send a loud message to those who commit crimes against people and property. Their crime days will be shortened by the use of this legislation which will prevent them from committing a series of crimes while on bail. Many criminals have boasted about the number of crimes — in some cases up to 20 — they committed while on bail. I hope those days are over.

I thank Members from all sides for their co-operation and involvement in the debate on the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I join the Minister in thanking everybody who contributed to passing this legislation, not least the officials in her Department. When this House passed the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, it was felt that by providing for the imposition of a subsequent sentence on an individual who committed an offence while on bail we would help to solve crime. To a large extent, when the message got across that criminals would receive a consecutive sentence if they committed a crime while on bail, the number of crimes committed by people while on bail decreased significantly. However, the courts later interpreted that to mean a consecutive suspended sentence. The message then went out that criminals would not serve any greater sentence by committing crimes while on bail and, consequently, the figures more than doubled in a short time. That is why I have always advocated the need for a bail referendum and legislation on foot of the referendum.

I acknowledge the Minister's commitment to holding a referendum on bail. It would be churlish and remiss of me not to acknowledge that her commitment was wholehearted although it is unfortunate, but true, that the Labour Party or Democratic Left did not want a bail referendum or this legislation.

Mrs. Owen

That is not true.

Mr. O'Donoghue

That is why it took two years from the time I introduced a Fianna Fáil Bill on bail to have practically the same Bill placed on the Statute Book. The Minister's Bill resembles in almost every respect the Bill I introduced on 3 May 1995, but that was voted down by the rainbow coalition Government. Even though it is two years later, I am pleased the legislation will be on the Statute Book within a short period of time. The lesson we must learn from this is that we have to wait a long time for the Labour Party or Democratic Left to act on crime or bail.

Ms O'Donnell

I welcome the passage of the Bill through the House. It represents the culmination of a long, considered and tortuous debate in favour of changing our liberal bail laws. The O'Callaghan decision was referred to in Kelly's edition of the Constitution as a spectacular liberal bridgehead on the territory of the State's claim to have accused persons remanded in custody pending trial. Perhaps that liberal approach was appropriate to the level of crime in the late 1950s and 1960s.

I do not believe we will regret agreeing to this considered change in our bail regime. However, the arguments against changing the law could not be swept aside and that is what caused the long delay. It cannot be said that there has not been adequate debate on this matter. All concerns have been fully considered. This is a good measure which vindicates the rights of law abiding citizens as well as not overriding the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Question put and agreed to.