Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 30, delete "on indictment".
Both these amendments seek to delete the words "on indictment". It seems to me that it should not only apply to persons convicted on indictment but to summary cases. I propose that pages 11 and 13 of the Bill be amended accordingly. There are many cases which may be heard in the District Court where the Oireachtas may wish the courts to have the same leeway on indictment. It would be unnecessarily restrictive to include the words "on indictment". In the circumstances I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
The intention of the Bill is to ensure that there is a mechanism available where people who have been convicted of serious crimes can be deprived of any material benefit accruing to them as a result of those crimes. As Members know, elaborate procedures are proposed in the Bill to try to achieve this situation. The District Court is a court of summary jurisdiction and by definition the offences with which it deals are less serious in nature. In the case of less serious offences the District Court has a wide array of options available to it to ensure that a person does not benefit from an offence. That can be reflected in the level of fine which the court may impose. Under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, it is open to the District Court, on a conviction of any person of an offence, to require that person to pay compensation in respect of any loss resulting from that offence.
The key question which must be addressed in relation to Deputy Mitchell's amendments — I very much appreciate the thinking behind them — is whether the balance of advantage lies with providing a confiscation facility for the District Court in addition to the range of options already available to it.
There are clear advantages with a court of summary jurisdiction. It enables relatively minor offences to be dealt with expeditiously, but there must be some doubts about whether the use of the confiscation procedure would be appropriate in such courts, particularly given the danger that because of the nature of the procedure it might contribute to clogging up the work of those courts. The type of detailed investigation of an offender's means and so on, which would usually be required for a confiscation order to be made, could be greatly disproportionate to any benefit which might be gained in the case of minor offences.
The reality is that where serious offences are involved they are generally dealt with by the Circuit Court and the confiscation procedure will be available there. The District Court has already available to it the options which I outlined, and in deciding whether to proceed by way of summary trial or an indictment the Director of Public Prosecution, in relation to his discretion in these matters, could take into account whether there would be an advantage in proceeding by way of indictment in terms of a subsequent application for a confiscation order. In all the circumstances our key concern and the concern of all the Members of this committee is to ensure that people do not benefit from the proceeds of crime. That concern can be met without accepting the terms of the amendments before us. I would be prepared to consider the points raised by Deputy Mitchell between now and Report Stage; but I prefer to deal with it as in the Bill already.
There may be a range of drug pushers involved here and it may be desirable to deal with those in the "lower income bracket" I use the term "lower income bracket" in a sarcastic way — in the District Court. A fine of £2,000 or a confiscation order of £2,000 or £5,000 against somebody who has a relatively small income from this racketeering might be as painful as a £100,000 fine on somebody at the upper end of the organised drug cartel. We should allow the District Court the same leeway. I note the points raised by the Minister and in view of the fact that she will consider the matter between now and Report Stage I will not press these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.