Charles Flanagan
Question:3 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the steps he proposes to take to deal with the intimidation of jurors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13236/10]
View answerThursday, 25 March 2010
Questions (3)
Oral answers (20 contributions)
Jury intimidation is a serious matter which goes to the heart of our criminal justice system. The Government is committed to ensuring the integrity of the jury system, and it was because of my concern about this matter that I introduced specific legislative measures to counteract this problem.
Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 creates the offence of harming, threatening or menacing or in any other way intimidating or putting in fear a juror or potential juror, or a member of his or her family, with the intention of causing the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with. It is important to note that potential jurors are included — that is, people who have been called for jury service but who have not been empanelled on a jury. I increased the penalty for this offence in the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 so that it is now punishable on indictment by a fine or a term of imprisonment of up to 15 years, or both.
There are, however, elements in society who have a contemptuous disregard for the rule of law and who are prepared to take any measures, including the intimidation of jurors, and indeed whole communities, to subvert it. I refer in particular to terrorist groups and to organised criminal gangs. In facing up to threats from these sources, one of the essential mechanisms available to the State is the use of the Special Criminal Court, which hears trials for certain offences without juries where it is considered that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice. This eliminates the possibility of jury intimidation in these cases while retaining the other important procedural guarantees of the judicial process. This option is available to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Offences against the State Act 1939 and under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, which provide for the use of the Special Criminal Court in cases related to organised crime.
If there is any need to consider the law again to ensure further protection of jurors, I will do so. In this regard, the Law Reform Commission has been examining the law on juries and is due to publish a consultation paper on the subject next week.
Will the Minister outline the circumstances in which he believes it appropriate for names and addresses of jurors to be made available?
The idea of availability of panels of jurors is governed by section 16 of the Juries Act 1976, which provides that every person is entitled to inspect a panel of jurors and that a party to any proceedings, criminal or civil, to be tried with a jury is entitled to a copy of the panel. My view on the intimidation of witnesses is clearly——
No, I did not ask about intimidation.
——dictated to by the way in which I heralded the amending legislation to the Criminal Justice Act through this House.
The portent of this question is the intimidation of witnesses.
It is not.
I have indicated with regard to the Law Reform Commission report——
I asked a simple question.
The consultation paper is coming out next week.
That is not what I asked about.
If actions are required relating to the list of panels of jurors and the names and addresses, it will be considered.
I find it most unsatisfactory that I asked the Minister a straightforward question and he made no attempt to provide me with an answer. I ask that section 16 of the Juries Act 1976 be amended. I invited the Minister to give me his views but he refused to do so. I cannot think of any circumstance in which the addresses of jurors should be made available to anybody.
I put it to the Minister that the Act, and section 16 to which he referred, deals with names of persons only. That is fair enough and it may be important that a person be identified by name when engaging in jury service. I see no circumstances where a person's address should be made available to anybody. Will the Minister ensure that persons serving on juries are safeguarded in a way that does not give rise to the type of scenario reported in newspapers recently?
The Minister's reply deals with issues after the event, penalties and sanctions. I am asking what preventative measures might be considered by the Minister, one being that the addresses not be made available to anybody. Why should a person's address or telephone number be made available like this? I cannot think of any circumstances when an address or phone details might be required to be made available. Addresses should not be made available to anybody other than the registrar, and I cannot see any circumstances in which the registrar might be required to give personal details such as a home address to anybody. I invite the Minister to agree with me on the issue.
Telephone number details should not be given out. There could be circumstances where addresses could be given out. Deputy Rabbitte and others represent constituencies where there have been instances of intimidation of people going for jury service. Some of us in the House have been aware of instances where people have been intimidated. There may be circumstances where people defending a defendant may need to know that a neighbour or people living in the immediate vicinity of the defendant are not on a jury for good and valid reasons.
The type of detail and information which should be made available is being looked at very carefully by the Law Reform Commission and I will take whatever action is necessary on the matter. My understanding is there is an obligation to give a copy of the panel to the defendant or his or her representatives. It must be available for inspection so that challenges, including seven challenges without reason, can be made.
It is necessary to have some background knowledge on jurors but there is a very fine balance. The concept of a jury is that people should be representative of the wider public if somebody is to be convicted, or not, by a jury of peers. Although the Deputy might not be asking about intimidation, the intimation is that intimidation is ongoing. That is in stark contrast to what was said to me when the House was considering criminal justice legislation and I was trying to take out the possibility of jury trials for certain offences because intimidation was a possibility. I know the Deputy does not want to hear this but people said I was only bringing in the measure for the sake of it. We were aware——
The Minister has not been able to rebut the issue. There have been no cases.
I was asked to produce evidence.
We must move on.
I was acting on the valid advice coming from An Garda Síochána and the courts with regard to what was going on.
The Minister has done nothing to remedy the issue. There has not been one case in a non-jury court.