A particularly abhorrent and outrageous crime was committed in Cavan town in the early hours of 3 December last year. Nothing that any of us says here today will alter that. All of our sympathies must go out to the victim of that crime for the appalling suffering, both mental and physical, which she has had to endure from the circumstances of the crime itself and for the additional trauma and distress that she has suffered as a result of having to re-live the ordeal again in the course of the court proceedings.
As I said, nothing that we say can undo what has happened. Our purpose in commenting on it must be to try to bring about any changes that are called for that may help to reduce the likelihood that anyone in future will have to suffer in the same way. It is not easy to know what can be done to prevent the occurrence of a crime of this nature. The fact that such an appalling crime can occur in our society must be of serious concern to us all and we can ask what has gone wrong with a society which produces people who are prepared to commit offences such as this. But this is not really what we are addressing here today. Our concern must be to ensure, when a crime does occur, particularly a crime of such a heinous nature, that the resources available to the State, and the ways in which these resources operate, are such as to provide an effective legal process by which the guilty can be apprehended and brought to justice.
As Minister for Justice I am entrusted with responsibility for the administration and business generally of public services in connection with law, justice, public order and police and with powers, duties and functions connected with the same. While this is so, there are overriding principles, enshrined in Articles of our Constitution, which provide for the separating of the functions of the executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. There is, accordingly placed on me, as Minister for Justice, a limitation on what I can properly say on this particular matter. As a member of the Executive addressing the Legislature about a matter which directly concerns the judicial process, it is incumbent on me to be punctilious in not saying anything which might be construed as breaching the principles I have referred to. There is a grave onus on us all to exercise responsibility in that regard.
I am of course anxious as far as possible, within the constraints I have mentioned, that the Dáil should have the opportunity of expressing its views on matters that can be and are being widely discussed in the media and elsewhere. If we cannot have that, there is a danger of lending support to the allegation that is sometimes made, that Dáil discussions are too often irrelevant to the real issues of the day.
In turning now to the case in question, I want to make two points very clearly, and I ask all subsequent speakers to keep them very firmly in mind. First, a person was charged with the very serious offences connected with this crime, that person was properly brought before a court, and that person was found "Not Guilty" of all the charges brought against him, by a jury of his peers. That is something that the jury was bound to do once, in their view, any reasonable doubt existed about the guilt of the accused. That the jury found it possible to agree on their verdict so quickly — in something like ten minutes according to reports — is, I believe, of some considerable significance. Whatever about that, the point is that the jury disposed of this case and we here cannot question their verdict and in effect presume to try the case again.
The second point is that neither are we here to comment in any way on the conduct of the case by the presiding judge. There is a long and I believe well-justified tradition in this House that the exercise of their functions by the Judiciary, or individual court decisions, are not criticised here. In making the point I want to make it very clear that there is no implication that justified criticism might be possible were it not for the existence of this tradition. The point to be borne in mind is that the Judiciary are independent in the exercise of their functions subject only to the Constitution and the law.
The aspect of the case which seems to have attracted most public concern is the reported absence of Senior Counsel briefed by the Director of Public Prosecutions during parts of the trial, especially during certain parts where his attendance could be expected to be of particular importance. I assure you that I most definitely share this concern that a Senior Prosecuting Counsel should be absent to any significant extent during the hearing of a serious criminal trial for which his services have been engaged.
I am aware that the General Council of the Bar of Ireland has had its own inquiry carried out in connection with the circumstances of this case. I have seen the report of this inquiry and in my view it does little to allay the public concern that has been widely expressed.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is also having inquiries made into what exactly transpired in this case and why. At this stage the only comment I shall make is this — irrespective of whether what happened occurred by virtue of some practice, or departure from a practice — the consequences of these inquiries must, in my view, be such as to ensure and to satisfy the public at large that an occurrence of this nature will not happen again.
I have also been informed by the Attorney General that he will be holding a statutory consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions under the provisions of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, on those aspects of our systems and procedures for prosecuting criminal offences which call to be looked at in the light of what occurred in this particular case. The Attorney General will keep both the Taoiseach and myself informed of the steps, if any, that may need to be taken arising out of the statutory consultation.
He has informed the Attorney General that his practice over the 12 years since the establishment of his office has been, and is, to brief counsel for the prosecution on the basis that they give full attention to the case throughout the trial. The Attorney General has also been informed by the DPP that his inquiries are being conducted in the light of that practice.
