Vol. 399 No. 4
32 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice if he accepts the validity of the view, expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Incorporated Law Society Conference that our gardaí have to operate under outdated statutes; and if he accepts the need to update our criminal law.
I accept that there are areas of the criminal law which need to be updated. It is practically inevitable that this will always be the case. The mores and values of a society, which the criminal law must reflect, are in a state of constant evolution and, therefore, the criminal law will always be subject to a need for change and updating.
In the address by the Director of Public Prosecutions which is referred to in the question, the Malicious Damages Act, 1861, is referred to in particular as an example of out of date legislation. I accept what was said but I can tell the House that I have in my Department a Bill, at an advanced stage of preparation, to replace that Act. It is my hope, indeed, to have it circulated before the end of this session.
As the area of the law dealing with crimes of dishonesty, the Larceny Act, 1990, which was recently enacted, updates and refines the law on receiving and the Law Reform Commission are at present working on recommendations for further legislation to replace the other provisions of the Larceny Act, 1916. The commission also have on their programme the question of updating legislation on offences against the person.
Bills are at present before the Oireachtas to amend the law on rape, to update the law on firearms and offensive weapons, to provide for DNA testing for forensic purposes and to abolish capital punishment and I have a very full programme of further legislation at various stages of preparation. I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that a total of 21 Bills in the Justice area have been enacted or introduced in the last three years.
I believe that it should be clear from what I have said that, not alone do I accept the need for updating of the law, but that I am, in fact, doing a good deal about it with all the speed that the resources at my disposal allow.
Will the Minister accept that weight should be given to the views expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions who is very slow indeed to go public and, I imagine, would not have done so unless he thought there was a serious problem? Will the Minister accept that the position today is that the Garda are operating against highly sophisticated, professional criminals and that we are giving them an unfair advantage by not updating our laws? Furthermore, would he not accept that there was a commitment in the Joint Programme for Government to update and consolidate our laws? Would he not accept that it is ridiculous that 130 years on Acts, such as the 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act, which have no relevance to the conditions of today are still being operated? Finally, I would suggest again to the Minister that the only way forward is to establish a criminal law reform commission to tackle the job properly. Will the Minister now, at this stage, concede that point and set up that committee so that we can do the job in a reasonably expeditious manner?
I do accept that when the Director of Public Prosecutions makes a statement in relation to the law it is right and proper that the Minister for Justice and the Government should pay careful attention to it. I accept that significant areas of our criminal law require review and updating. The fact is that the resources which we can devote to law reform are limited. The best use that can be made of these resources is to target those areas where the need for review and reform is greatest. I should point out that the work is not finished when a commission reports and makes recommendations for legislation. Further considerable work has to go into preparing and drafting Bill to implement recommendations and both my Department and the draftsmans' office have limited resources. Rather than using the broad brush it is better to target particular areas. I fully accept that there are anomolies in the law, the Deputy mentioned one, the 1861 Act, and I mentioned others. We are coming to grips with them.
Would the Minister not accept that every developed country has a criminal law reform commission? In many States in Australia there are separate criminal law reform commissions. Would the Minister not accept that it is absolutely ridiculous to expect the general Law Reform Commission that has to cover everything from dog licences to rape to do the job? This country should now take the obvious, sensible step and have a separate criminal law reform commission to do the necessary investigation for the updating and consolidation of our laws.
Setting up a second law reform commission is not the solution to the problem.
It is part of it.
I do not disagree with the need for law reform in this area. I accept that there is a need for change and we are trying to bring about those changes. In the last three years more than 21 Bills have been prepared and there are some important ones before the House. For example, I hope to circulate a Bill to change the Malicious Damages Act, 1861, by the end of the session. I am attempting to target certain areas with the resources available. It is not a question of establishing another commission. A commission would produce a report but it would have to be processed. We are trying to come to grips with the problem.
I would like clarification from the Minister on a matter we have focused on in the House in recent times, the issue dealt with by the Martin Review Group. Have the Government decided whether changes, arising from the findings of that group, headed by Judge Martin, should be implemented?
If the Deputy tables a question about the Judge Martin review I will be delighted to answer it.
With respect, this matter concerns criminal law and the Minister is replying to a question about the issue. My question was well within the ambit of the questions on the Order Paper.
I would prefer to give a considered reply to that question rather than dealing with it by way of a reply to a supplementary question. If the Deputy tables a question I will be delighted to give him a detailed reply.
I should like to ask the Minister to consider his policy in regard to this, bearing in mind that he has said it is the function of his Department to target specific areas in need of reform. Will the Minister accept that in line with updating the criminal law there is a need to simplify the laws and make them more easily understood? Will he accept that that is part and parcel of the problem? Will he also accept that for the criminal justice system to prosecute and convict it must deal with many amendments to Acts, regulations, amendments to regulations and so on? Instead of targeting specialist areas and bringing forward amendments to them, the Minister should consider a codification of the criminal law system to ensure that we simplify the position. The Minister has told us that the resources are not available to his Department and I suggest that the only answer is to establish a commission to simplify criminal law for the general public. There is no doubt that that is not the position at present.
The Deputy asked if I am prepared to change my view on this and I should like to tell him that I am prepared to change my view if I find there is a need for change, no matter which area we are discussing. Undoubtedly, a general review of the criminal law is desirable but it would be a very time consuming exercise. It is not feasible to undertake such a review at present because it would necessitate a substantial reallocation of both resources and staff within my Department from existing high priority projects.
Why not hand the matter over to the Law Reform Commission?
My approach is to deal with the areas of the criminal law most in need of review on a priority basis.
On a piecemeal basis.
33 Mr. McGahon asked the Minister for Justice in view of the claim by the secretary of the Garda Representative Association, that the force was hampered and handcuffed by the law in their fight against ever increasing violence and crime in our society, the steps he proposes to take to amend legislation to help the Garda Síochána in their efforts to maintain law and order.
I fully accept that in tackling our crime problems it is vitally important that the gardaí have the legislative backing that they need to do their job effectively and considerable progress is being made in providing this legislation — recent examples include the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill, 1989, and the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Bill, 1989.
The Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill introduces strict and effective controls on stun guns, crossbows, knives and other dangerous articles and provides the Garda Síochána with appropriate powers of arrest, search and seizure related to the provisions of the Bill. The Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Bill empowers the Garda Síochána to take bodily samples from persons suspected of serious offences, for the purpose of forensic testing, to enable them to take advantage of the most up to date developments in forensic science, including DNA profile testing, in the investigation of crime.
The provisions of the recently enacted Larceny Act replace the existing offence of receiving stolen property with a more broadly based offence of handling stolen property. It also contains important new provisions regarding the possession of articles for use in larceny and buglary and related offences. I have no doubt that this Act will greatly help the Garda to deal with those who receive and deal in stolen property.
Also, the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, conferred on the gardaí significant powers for the purpose of investigating serious offences, including powers of detention after arrest.
I should add that all relevant legislation in the area of criminal law, evidence and procedure is kept under review. A number of measures in that area are being considered in my Department and the necessary legislative proposals will be brought forward as appropriate.
While I am, of course, concerned at the level of violence associated with much of the crime perpetrated at the present time and while I do not wish to play down the seriousness of the overall crime situation I believe that it is right that I should make the point that the provisional figures for 1989 indicate a drop of approximately 15 per cent in the level of recorded indictable crime during the period 1983 to 1989. I am determined to do everything possible to ensure that this welcome downward trend is maintained.
Is the Minister aware that the Garda representative bodies and the Director of Public Prosecutions raised the question of a suspected person's right to silence in the investigation of a criminal offence? Is the Minister aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions referred to hardened and determined criminals simply picking a spot on a wall when sitting through a police inquiry? Is he aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions said that often people were getting away with criminal activities because the system was failing to vindicate the rights of ordinary citizens who became crime victims? Has the Minister given consideration to the views expressed by the Garda representative bodies, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the right to silence?
I would prefer if the Deputy tabled a specific question on the right to silence. If he does I will give him a detailed reply.
It is worthy of a separate question.
The Minister has enough to keep him going until October when I will raise the matter again.
