I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I wish to share my time with Deputy Kenneally.
Private Members' Business. - Criminal Procedure Bill, 1995: Second Stage.
I am sure that is satisfactory. I regret that we lost a few minutes of Private Members' time. I hope that time will be made up satisfactorily as we proceed.
The primary duty of any democracy is to provide effective structures to preserve and protect the fabric of society. It is our duty to ensure that sensible and necessary laws are enacted and enforced. That requires a vigilant Legislature, an efficient policy force and an adequate court system.
Our system of constitutional justice requires, by virtue of Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution, that the State guarantees in its laws to respect and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. Our task as a Legislature is to enact laws which protect the rights of the citizen and at the same time discharge our constitutional duty under Article 40.3.2 to vindicate the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen. The performance of these obligations requires that a balance be set between the rights of the accused on the one hand and the rights of the victim on the other.
In the past I referred to my belief that the growing body of jurisprudence which deals with the rights of accused persons has all but eclipsed the rights of victims. That is most obvious in the delays that exist in the trial of serious criminal offences and the cumbersome statutory procedures which contributes substantially to those delays. The delay in our court system has become endemic. On 21 February this year the Minister for Justice informed the House in a written answer that 19 murder cases, two attempted murder cases, 47 rape cases and two cases of aggravated sexual assault were awaiting trial before the Central Criminal Court. Last Thursday, 21 March, each of the people charged with those serious offences appeared before the Central Criminal Court in order to have dates fixed for the next court sessions. Of the 70 cases on the list, it was not possible to provide a trial date in respect of 49. A further eight cases had only a provisional date fixed, and a large proportion of those will not be heard on the fixed date.
The allocation of two High Court judges to the Central Criminal Court is wholly inadequate. Complexities in the law and developments in the area of forensic science have resulted in many Central Criminal Court cases taking protracted periods of time. In the last legal term one murder case lasted for 44 days and in this term a case has exceeded that length, and is continuing. Delays in the Central Criminal Court are so well established that even if both of the new High Court judges to be appointed under the provisions of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995, were to be assigned to the Central Criminal Court it would take more than a year to clear existing cases. As matters stand the delay between return for trial and trial may be two years. This is unacceptable to victims, their families and to society because it comes on top of protracted delays caused by cumbersome and unnecessary procedures at the pre-trial stage.
The combined results of the listing and procedural delays are that a person arrested and charged with murder or rape today, if released on bail, is highly unlikely to be tried for that crime before 1999. The maxim "Justice delayed is justice denied" is as true today as when first spoken. Delays of the magnitude being experienced are unacceptable as they result in people being able to get away with murder for years before being dealt with by the courts.
This House has an obligation to introduce laws and to provide sufficient judges and courts to vindicate the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen. This Bill which I present to the House on behalf of Fianna Fáil is such a measure. It is directed at reforming the preliminary and preparatory stages of indictable crime. These are governed at present by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967. The scheme of criminal procedure as envisaged by that Act and operated at present is wasteful of resources and gives rise to substantial delays, which is recognised by everybody involved.
Speaking to this House on 11 May last — Official Report, col. 1568 — the Minister for Justice stated:
I am concerned at some of the present procedural arrangements for dealing with criminal cases and, in particular, the amount of Garda time which is spent unproductively in court. Preparation of a Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which will address this problem is at an advanced stage.
There are a number of outdated procedures and practices which come to light as requiring change. I have arranged for a list of these to be prepared on an ongoing basis with a view to introducing a new Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill each year.
It is regrettable, to say the least, that over ten months after the Minister announced the preparation of legislation to be at "an advanced stage" no legislation has been produced. It is equally regrettable that having identified a need for an annual criminal law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill she has let 1995 come and go without introducing one. Presumably by now the required legislation has progressed from being advanced to "very advanced". If this is the case then no doubt after the passage of a further ten months the Minister will describe it as being "nearing completion" and thereafter at ten monthly intervals it will progress from being "virtually complete" to being "imminent". The Minister has a thesaurus of excuses. Nobody has ever applied so many adjectives in an attempt to disguise inactivity.
The standard course of criminal justice legislation through this House over the last 15 months has been for Fianna Fáil to publish a Bill and within three weeks the Minister comes, scissors in hand and with a bucket dripping with paste, to announce that she is to introduce a thinly disguised version of that Bill as her own.
That is what the Deputy might wish.
It is a fact.
Fianna Fáil published this Bill last year. Regrettably, despite the legislation being at an advanced stage, the Minister has failed to respond. Members who wish to reduce court delays are thus left with one option — to support this Bill.
The present course of a person accused of an indictable offence through the courts is tortuous and slow. Swift and effective justice is needed as a deterrent. Our present system is slow and tends to defeat the interests of justice. On arrest a person is brought before the court and remanded. On the first remand he will be placed on election and the issue of whether the offence is minor and fit to be tried summarily may be dealt with. Frequently, the case will again be remanded for directions from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thereafter, it will become necessary to prepare a book of evidence. It is unusual for the book of evidence to be available on the date initially fixed and at least one further remand is generally needed.
When the book of evidence is served it is necessary to again adjourn the case to enable the accused and his legal advisers to consider its contents. Thereafter, either side may as of right require one or all of the witnesses to give evidence on deposition. This is a mind numbing statutory procedure whereby a witness gives oral evidence and it is reduced to writing in longhand by a District Court clerk. The entire Dickensian charade is presided over by a District Court judge. It is important to note that the right to have depositions taken is statutory; there is no constitutional imperative for having such a system.
Subsequent to the depositions being taken the case is frequently remanded for legal submissions to be made. In the vast majority of cases no submissions are made and only a handful of cases are dismissed by a judge at the conclusion of the preliminary examination. The entire procedure can stretch over eight or ten separate court appearances. The prosecuting Garda is obliged to attend and wait, sometimes for hours, on each occasion.
It is a procedure which has no place in the late 20th century and we propose its abolition. In its place this Bill requires that, not later than the second appearance of an accused before the court, the judge must conduct an examination as to whether the case will be dealt with ultimately on indictment or by summary hearing. There is no point in endlessly adjourning a case before the District Court. Cases which will be dealt with ultimately on indictment must immediately be sent forward to the court of trial. This provision will remove at least half a dozen expensive remands and cut over six months off the length of time it takes for a trial to begin.
Within 14 days of being returned for trial the case must be listed for mention before the court of trial, whether that is the Central Criminal Court or the Circuit Court. On that day or within one month of that day the book of evidence must be served. This will require an efficient and speedy response by the DPP and his staff. It may require on occasions that complex books of evidence will be prepared by counsel rather than State solicitors who already have a substantial workload. The cost savings involved in operating the District Court in the manner envisaged by this Bill are enormous and will more than pay for any increased expenditure required to ensure proper expedition.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to prevent pre-trial delays. Section 6 (4) of the Bill limits the late service of evidence on the defence. A notice of additional evidence, which, if served late, can frequently result in the adjournment of the trial, cannot be served without leave of the court within seven days of the date of trial. This will require the prosecution to have its case fully prepared, on paper at least, seven days in advance of the trial.
It is well recognised that serious sexual offences fall into a special category. The Oireachtas recognised this in 1990 when it required that all rape and aggravated sexual assault cases be heard in the High Court. An unintended consequence of that decision, designed to bring about uniformity in sentencing and to mark the seriousness of the crimes, has been that a significant delay problem has now arisen. Section 8 of the Bill provides a special fast track procedure for specific serious offences specified in the schedule to the Bill. Offences of rape and serious sexual assault need to be tried quickly, as do cases of drug trafficking.
The most recent statistics indicate that 71 people were convicted for drug dealing in 1993. Such offences need to be tried quickly to demonstrate society's determination to stamp out this type of criminal activity. Robbery offences, frequently perpetrated by drug abusers, also need to be dealt with in a speedy manner. These offences would have to be heard within 90 days of the accused's appearance before the District Court. If an extension of that period is necessary, it could only be granted by a High Court judge satisfied by evidence of that fact. This would provide for a proper system of control by the High Court over important cases.
In the Schedule to the Bill are listed the offences to which section 8 relates. These include: (1) rape; (2) rape contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990; (3) aggravated sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990; (4) robbery contrary to section 23 of the Larceny Act, 1916 as inserted by section 5 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 and (5) possession of a controlled drug for the purposes of sale or supply contrary to section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 and 1984.
The Bill also provides that other cases can be tried by the Central Criminal Court whenever there is a substantial point of law or public importance involved or if the interests of justice require that a case be tried in that court, which power of transfer I envisage being used sparingly. Its need was highlighted by comments made by Mr. Justice Carney, an acknowledged expert in the area of fraud within the European Union, to the effect that the European Union might not be satisfied by serious fraud cases, perhaps involving tens of millions of pounds, being tried before a court with a civil jurisdiction of only £30,000.
This is not an isolated Bill but part of a carefully prepared overall plan for the administration of our criminal justice system. My party has demonstrated over the past year or so, through our various criminal legislative proposals, that we are the only party with a plan to tackle the very serious crime levels. An example is our proposal for a constitutional amendment to alter our bail laws so as to permit an accused deemed likely to commit indictable offences if released to be remanded in custody for a limited 90 days. The same time limit applies to the trial of offences scheduled under this Bill. It is a coherent, focused plan which differs enormously from the type of recent by-election baloney we have heard from the Tánaiste, whose Pauline conversion to the view that our bail laws have to be tightened no doubt was prompted by Labour's discovery on the doorsteps in Dublin West and Donegal North East that it had utterly lost touch with the electorate. Fianna Fáil has been drawing the attention of this rainbow coalition Government to people's concern at the very serious levels of crime.
It is of considerable importance that the public knows that the measures recently proposed by the Tánaiste to tighten our bail laws were contained in a Fianna Fáil Private Members' Bill which he and his partners in the rainbow coalition voted down in May 1995. The Minister for Justice said at that time that the measures were only tinkering with the problem. Fianna Fáil responded to that challenge and proposed an amendment of the Constitution to provide that a person could be refused bail if a judge was satisfied that, in all probability, he would commit a serious criminal offence if admitted to bail. Let the record show that this Bill was also voted down by the Tánaiste and his Cabinet colleagues in the rainbow coalition Government.
The truth of the matter is that the Tánaiste proposes measures which the Minister for Justice has condemned. The Minister is proposing a referendum on bail with which the Tánaiste does not agree. Who is in charge of the rainbow coalition's policy on crime and who is responsible for framing that policy? We now know that the answer to both those extremely important questions is precisely the same — nobody.
The electors of Donegal North-East and Dublin West will not be fooled by the Leader of the Labour Party whose Minister for Finance cancelled the construction of prisons at Castlerea and Mountjoy in the absence of the Minister for Justice. Their answer to our crime problem was to give a tax incentive to a tiny minority of old age pensioners for the installation of a burglar alarm. An elderly person has to be living alone in order to qualify. When one takes into account the fact that a burglar alarm in a remote rural area is unlikely to be heard by anybody——
The only people who will gain from that relief will be those in the Minister for Finance's constituency.
The tinsel town antics of the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance are about as impressive as the legislative famine over which the Minister for Justice has presided since taking office. The Tánaiste's cramming of knowledge prior to the 2 April by-elections will lead to even the most hardened cynics and sophisticated political connoisseurs choking back howls of derision.
The Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare might as well square the circle and answer the hard question everybody wants answered. Will they support Fianna Fáil's proposal to restrict the right to bail of individuals who in all probability — in many cases definitely — will commit serious criminal offences while on bail? Alternatively, do they propose to continue to support a system which allows those accused of the most heinous crimes, who in all probability will commit similar crimes while on bail, to roam our countryside for at least two years before being brought to trial?
The Minister for Justice is doing our citizens and her own party a grave disservice by conniving with this Machiavellian couple to hide the truth. The phrase openness, transparency and accountability surely must enter the lexicon of Irish political mythology as the epitaph of the rainbow coalition Government. Whereas it becomes the Tánaiste, who has been the single greatest obstacle to the holding of a referendum on bail, ably abetted by the Minister for Social Welfare, to utter opportunistic and contradictory demands for tough bail laws, the reality is that he is a member of a Government which refuses to operate the existing bail laws.
In 1995 the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court issued 187 warrants for the arrest of persons who had failed to turn up in court in compliance with the terms of their bail. Would the House care to guess in how many of those cases applications were brought to estreat the bail money? There has been a single application.
This Government is operating our bail law as a licence to abscond and has failed to pursue bailsmen for the money pledged after courts have issued warrants. This Government, in particular the finger-wagging Tánaiste, ably abetted by the Minister for Social Welfare is fond of proclaiming this to be a Government of openness, transparency and accountability.
The people want to know who will be accountable for the Government's abysmal failure to tackle the serious crime problem. Will this be yet another instance of the Government preaching one thing while doing another and yet another instance of double standards, or will some member of the Government be made accountable for this scandal? Why was only one application to estreat bail made in 1995 when it was abundantly clear that the problem had become extremely serious? One wonders why the Tánaiste is not engaged in his well known hobby of political headhunting. Could it be he now realises that the Minister of State in his office, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, retains her position because the Fine Gael poodles were prepared to bark but not to bite? Their resentful yapping was in marked contrast to the manner in which the Labour Rottweiller sunk its teeth into the political careers of the former Minister of State, Deputies Coveney and Hogan?
This is a Government of proven hypocrisy. It proclaims ethics while seeking to sell access to the Minister for Finance. It blocked a bail referendum while proclaiming the need for tough bail laws. On crime it is the softest Government this country has ever had or is likely to have again. That we are assembled today to debate a Private Members' Bill to reform criminal procedure is proof that this Minister for Justice, who continuously promises that this legislation is "at an advanced stage", has fallen asunder. That is not entirely her own fault; she is shackled by the denizens of the so-called left.
This Government does not have any criminal justice legislative programme. In 15 months in office, the Minister for Justice managed to create the greatest legislative drought in the history of the State. She has introduced one crime prevention Bill during that time and that was an ill-copied replica of an earlier Fianna Fáil Bill. The only conclusion one can reach is that this Government simply does not care to introduce legislation or to operate existing laws. It will continue, with the same sense of ethical mobility displayed by the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, to preach criminal law reform and to make promises which will not be delivered.
It is time our Legislature faced up to its responsibilities and took positive action to combat the rash of lawlessness which has come on to our streets in recent years. We must prove we are serious about tackling the growing crime problem. This Bill is another attempt to do that but perhaps it is a futile one as the Government votes down every measure put forward by this side of the House, particularly in this area by Deputy O'Donoghue.
I spent a great deal of time in the past week in the constituency of Dublin West and crime is the issue raised on most doorsteps. If the Minister and the Government have not grasped that reality, they are sadly out of touch. I note from a Dublin chamber of commerce report that the annual cost of crime to Dublin's retail sector is approximately £30 million per annum. In addition, those businesses spend in excess of £20 million per year on preventative measures. Crime seriously hampers business in Dublin as it does throughout the country. Not only does it endanger citizens, but it reduces profits and threatens jobs.
There are many reasons for the prevalence of crime ranging from underlying social problems to the allocation of insufficient resources to the gardaí. What the Minister said on 11 May in respect of the amount of time gardaí spend in court was referred to. Has an analysis been carried out in the Department of Justice on the number of Garda man hours lost by this procedure? One only has to attend the local district or circuit court to see the number of gardaí who are required to sit around day after day waiting for cases to be called which often take only one or two minutes. That is a ridiculous use of a scarce resource.
A crucial factor is the inadequacy of our legal system which makes securing convictions difficult. There is a low incidence of prosecutions for crimes against business and most business people are dissatisfied with the courts and sentencing. Clearly there are weaknesses in these two elements of the criminal justice system which need to be urgently addressed. The fundamental problem is that the system is unfairly weighted in favour of the accused. This Bill, which I welcome, is a positive step towards providing the kind of security which the people not only demand but have a right to expect. It provides an opportunity for the Minister to implement some of the policies we know she favours but which she is prevented from implementing by Cabinet pressure from the parties of the left who seem more concerned about the rights of the criminal than those of the victim.
One of the main thrusts of the Bill is towards speeding up trials which, on the face of it, might appear to be an effort to accommodate the courts on the State side but that is not necessarily the case. It is also to the benefit of a defendant, particularly one who claims innocence, as it will give them justice at an early date. We have already heard this evening about the old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. This is an attempt to ensure justice is not delayed and an accused person can have his case heard within a reasonable period. It is only the criminal who will not be enamoured with such measures as he or she will always try to delay proceedings as much as possible to frustrate the judicial system.
We have not sufficiently availed of the advances in technology to assist both the administration of justice and the conviction of criminals, for instance, the use of tape recorders for the taking of depositions. Other countries saw the benefit of such basic machines decades ago yet we are only now beginning to approve their use. Is it any wonder there is such a huge backlog in our courts? I shudder to think when computers will get official sanction. It would be foolish of us not to take every opportunity to update the manner in which our courts conduct their business. While business and commerce make the best use of new technology for communication, office procedure, word processing and retrieval, so too must we bring the administration of justice not only into the 20th century but further into the 21st century.
We had a costly lesson in recent years in the Office of the Attorney General where not only were thinking and attitudes outmoded, but the procedures and systems also. We do not need a rerun of that elsewhere in our Administration and the time has passed when the effect of the introduction of new technology in our courts should have been assessed. I realise we are making strides in that direction but much more needs to be done.
This Bill provides for the abolition of the ineffective and costly preliminary examination which currently takes place in the District Court. The Bill provides for the replacement of that procedure with an immediate return to the court of trial. On modern technology, to which Deputy O'Donoghue alluded in his contribution, we must realise there have been great advances which, of necessity, will slow up court cases but we do not seem to provide for that. There is no reason the operation of the courts should be so slow, except that its service has consistently been denied proper funding and resources. The operation of the planning and development Acts is a case in point where people have to be dealt with within a specified period. In comparison with the courts, this is a relatively stress free system and a jail sentence is not pending on the result. With enough personnel and resources there is no reason the courts could not be equally speedy. There is no point in tackling one area of the criminal process if progress is not made in other areas to streamline procedures, prove detection and provide additional places of detention. A more integrated approach is necessary and this Bill is only one piece of a much larger jigsaw.
If we can achieve a speedier process through the court, which we all desire, criminals will be convicted earlier than has been the case up to now. As matters stand, it will mean that the prisons' revolving doors will move even faster with the danger of coming completely off their hinges. Additional prison spaces are needed and, with better management of the available prison spaces, we should be able to provide low security prisons for those who have committed minor crimes. While I accept that some efforts are being made in this regard, they have come late, having been frustrated by the junior partners in Government.
On the integrated approach, I previously welcomed the decision to increase the number of judges which was another part of this larger jigsaw. The provisions in the Courts and Court Officers Act are complementary to those proposed by Deputy O'Donoghue in this Bill. I welcome the schedule included with the Bill which specifies those offences which must come to trial within 90 days according to section 89 (1).
Our record of the treatment of women in society has been dismal, at least until relatively recently. The first three offences named in the Schedule refer to assaults usually carried out against a woman. A number of these cases are perpetrated by means of domestic violence. Previously there have been recorded delays of more than a year in getting such cases to court. This is totally unacceptable and the Minister will have to ensure that such cases are dealt with speedily. It would mean that the trauma of a court appearance experienced by the victim would not hang over them indefinitely, as at present. As matters stand, almost at the whim of the perpetrator, such cases can be delayed. Section 9 (1) is welcome because heretofore cases were transferred for trivial reasons, often because the defendant did not like the judge involved. This made a mockery of our judicial system.
I spoke previously in this House about the moving of civil trials from one Circuit Court area to another. We did have the practice, which I spoke against, of defendants opting for transfer, often for no legitimate reason. At the time this was their entitlement. In this legislation an attempt is made to prevent this abuse of the system with the proviso that an application can be made to the High Court for an order directing the transfer of a trial from the Circuit Criminal Court to the Central Criminal Court, but only in the most restrictive of circumstances. This is a sensible provision. Fianna Fáil, through Deputy O'Donoghue, has again introduced legislation which attempts to tilt the law in favour of the victim and away from the criminal. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
Deputy O'Donoghue is again to be commended for bringing forward this further attempt at criminal law reform. The main purpose of the Bill is to abolish preliminary hearings. It also seeks to set down timescales in which a trial must take place in relation to specified offences and allow either the defence or the prosecution to seek to have a trial transferred to the Central Criminal Court from the Circuit Criminal Court.
I appreciate that the Bill was not assigned any particular priority by the Deputy's party in the sense that it was published last June and it is only now that his party has decided to have it debated in Private Members' Time. Far be it from me to say in a cynical way that this Bill has been brought forward for debate tonight and tomorrow night rather than for the usual four periods of Dáil sitting time that a Private Members Bill would get. I wonder why? Could it be that the Fianna Fáil party would dare to use it cynically because of the forthcoming by-election and would want to have a vote tomorrow night so that it could use it cynically to circulate something to the electorate in Dublin West.
We have a number of similar Bills in the queue. There are more to come.
I am sure this was not its motive and that it has nothing to do with the fact that a by-election campaign is taking place. The people I have been meeting in the by-election canvass are not fooled by the fact that Fianna Fáil seems to be convinced that the only way to fight crime here is to turn out Bills endlessly. For the love of God, if Acts, on their own, on our Statute Book could stop crime there would be no crime here because our Statute Book is full of legislation. The public knows it takes more than legislation to tackle crime. That is why I am glad to be able to tell them on those same doorsteps of the many other measures the Government has put in place to tackle crime. It is not only laws we need. We set up a national drugs unit, a national bureau of fraud investigation and provided additional prison places over and above the number proposed by the outgoing Government in 1992. From this Thursday there will be drug treatment units in our prisons and many other mechanisms to stop drugs getting into our prisons. Through the Minister for Health more drug treatment centres for drug addicts have been provided. Those measures help to fight crime in society. I wish the Opposition would grow up and realise it takes more than publishing Bills to fight crime.
We know that.
It also takes more than publishing a tiny card which was being pushed through the doors of the houses in Castleknock today. Some child forgot to put one in a letterbox and it was blown on to the footpath. The card seemed to imply that because a particular candidate was a well paid barrister who happened to spend most of his working time defending the self same criminals that somehow he alone knew how to tackle crime. If all our fine barristers combined their expertise I wonder whether they could solve the crime problem? The public is not gullible and will not be fooled by these statements as Deputy O'Donoghue seems to think. This Bill provides us with an opportunity to debate the issues to which it gives rise but it demonstrates once again the futility of pretending that simple steps can be taken, without very careful consideration, to address the complexities of the crime issue.
The Government is not satisfeid that the case has been made for the complete abolition of preliminary hearings in the District Court and such an approach would contradict the consistent advice received down the years from the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, an eminent body comprising members of the Judiciary, experienced legal practitioners and lay people, which was in existence long before I took office. What is being proposed might hamper the prosecution of offences and far from reducing court delays could, in practice, add to them. In the circumstances the Government has no option but to oppose the Second Stage of this measure, which at the very least would be unlikely to have the benefits claimed by its proponents. That is not to say that the Government has a closed mind in relation to possible improvements to criminal procedure. Deputy O'Donoghue ignores the substantial changes made in this regard in the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995. The preparation of a Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which will contain further procedural improvements, is at an advanced stage — the Minister who preceded me in this Department promised this Bill many times. The reason it has taken longer than I envisaged last May, when I said what the Deputy quoted, is that every day I found another element of court and miscellaneous other procedures which should have been transformed before I took over this office but had not been. The cumbersome procedures of the courts did not come into being today or yesterday. As a practising solicitor, the Deputy knows how many frustrating hours he spends with judges, barristers and courts paraphernalia. Why did he not break down the door of the last two Ministers and ask them to do something? I am now taking action and he will be pleased with my Criminal Justice (Misceallenous Provisions) Bill, which will get rid of many cumbersome and antiquated procedures.
I am also pleased to tell the House that I will shortly publish a Criminal Law Bill which, among other things, will place powers of arrest for members of the Garda Síochána on a modern statutory basis. I received approval for this at Cabinet this morning. Other legislative measures which are at an advanced stage include a Non-fatal Offences against the Persons Bill, a Juvenile Justice Bill, which is with the Attorney-General for drafting, and a Fraud Bill.
I am also at present consulting my colleagues on comprehensive proposals to deal with the problem of offending while on bail. I must disabuse Deputy O'Donoghue of his views on this but when he gets into his Kerry mode, everything gets lost. Nothing goes beyond Kerry if he wants to attack a colleague and when he is back in Kerry he attacks the Tánaiste. I can assure him the Tánaiste has never tied my hands on any of my criminal law proposals. As a former practitioner he knows full well the need for changes in our criminal law procedures. I am consulting about my comprehensive proposals but the simplistic way the debate has developed, primarily led by a small number of Fianna Fáil Members, has not taken into account the complexity of the examination of the bail issue. I am doing so, as I assume the former Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn was doing by sending the issue to the Law Reform Commission.
That was a long time ago.
It was but this is a complex matter. The Deputy will soon have a chance to comment on my comprehensive proposals.
If the Tánaiste agrees with them.
The Deputy need have no worries about the Tánaiste staying my hand. Like all other Ministers, the Tánaiste is an effective member of the Cabinet who understand the realities of crime.
Why does he not say he supports the Minister's referendum?
The Deputy wants to build this up for Kerry Radio.
The Member in possession, without interruption, please.
Deputy O'Donoghue has been critical of the Government's record of criminal law reform and seeks to contrast this with his own record in bringing forward legislative proposals. The reality is that much of the extensive work I have undertaken since becoming Minister for Justice in relation to a comprehensive programme of criminal law reform is now coming to fruition and I assure the Deputy that over the coming months he will have little to criticise on that score.
We will see.
It is simply not an option for the Government to throw together various half-baked legal proposals, based on gossip and pub talk, without the necessary analysis and research having been undertaken and then pretend that these will in some way alleviate our crime problem. I do not favour such a game of mirrors. I will be more than happy to have my record judged on the quality of the many legislative proposals I will have introduced rather than participating in some imaginary legislative league table with the Deputy where points are scored irrespective of the impracticality or undesirability of the measures which are put together and labelled a Bill.
Deputy O'Donoghue spoke about crime generally. Effective law reform has a role to play but there is a wide range of practical measures which need to be taken to ensure the effective operation of the criminal justice system. Developments are taking place in this area every day which often, of their nature, go relatively unnoticed. Giving the gardaí new legislative powers is clearly of little value unless we ensure at the practical resource level they have all that is needed to tackle crime.
An important issue is the question of adequate accommodation for gardaí. For example, before I became Minister for Justice I visited a station, which I am sure the Deputy has also seen, in Blanchardstown——
What a coincidence.
——and was concerned about the lack of proper accommodation. I represented part of that area before I became Minister. When I was appointed I was glad to make this issue a priority, which it had not been before my appointment——
Or before the Minister heard about the by-election.
——and plans to replace the station in Blanchardstown are, I am pleased to say, well advanced. Negotiations with Fingal County Council with a view to acquiring a site known as the "Clonmel site" are well advanced and I fully expect construction of the new station to begin before the end of the year. There is a real danger that our efforts at criminal law reform will be far less effective than they could be if we do not provide this type of resource.
The Deputy's Bill seeks to improve court procedures and notwithstanding the practical difficulties with what is proposed, it has a laudable aim. However, it is equally important to do what we can to prevent young people becoming involved in crime in the first place and being part of the criminal justice system and trial procedures the Deputy seeks to reform. In this context I will briefly mention the series of youth 1 diversion projects under way at present, a good example of which is the WEB Project — Working to Enhance Blanchardstown. The Deputy has raised it often so I anticipated he would do so again. I was happy to pledge substantial funding to this project. It should considerably enhance the quality of life in the area and we all hope that a number of the ten to 16 year old age group involved with the project will be helped at the beginning to avoid getting involved in crime and becoming another crime or court statistic. It is a truism to suggest that delays in court proceedings which the Bill seeks to address can be alleviated if we manage to achieve a reduction in criminality, which is a basic aim of the type of projects I have mentioned.
I should make clear in relation to preliminary hearing — the issue at the centre of what the Deputy is proposing in the Bill before the House — that the Government does not have a closed mind about possible improvements in this area. I have been examining this in the context of measures which might be taken to reduce delays in cases being tried. The recent Prosecution of Offences and Punishment of Crime Bill, introduced by the Progressive Democrats and supported by Deputy O'Donoghue's party, also contained proposals for change in this area which were of a substantially different nature from the outright abolition proposed in this Bill. Deputy O'Donoghue is hedging his bets by supporting the Progressive Democrat Bill and moving his own, although they are different proposals.
They have the same objective.
I realise that. As I mentioned earlier, the consistent advice of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure has been against the abolition of preliminary hearings in the District Courts. In all the circumstances and in the light of what is said on this Bill, the proposals contained in the Progressive Democrats' Bill and the review I have undertaken in this area, I am prepared to consider referring the question of the abolition of, or improvements which might be made in the procedures surrounding, preliminary examinations back to the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, the appropriate body to examine the totality of the proposals of Deputy O'Donoghue and the Progressive Democrats. We must get it right if we intend to make these changes.
I am informed that the preliminary examination system has existed in this country in some shape or form since 1634. I am sure the House would wish to be spared a complete history of how the preliminary examinations have developed since then, but I should refer to the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, which is essentially the statutory basis for the system as it operates now. Indeed, Deputy O'Donoghue seeks to repeal much of that Act.
It is important to note that the legislation followed on from a report issued in 1963 by the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. This was the committee's first report and it was entitled The Preliminary Investigation of Indictable Offences. The committee recommended against the abolition of preliminary examinations but suggested various changes in procedure which were largely reflected in the 1967 Act.
The committee listed what were perceived to be both advantages and disadvantages with the system of preliminary examinations. Among the advantages which it identified was that the procedure required that the case against the accused must be investigated and weighted by a judicial officer who is independent of the prosecution and defence alike before the accused can be put upon his trial. As such it was a valuable safeguard to the citizen against speculative prosecution and protected him or her against the ordeal, expense and distress of a public trial by a jury merely upon accusation.
The committee also considered that the procedure afforded the accused an opportunity of hearing and knowing the evidence against him or her, of testing such evidence and possibly breaking it down in cross-examination and of giving evidence himself which may possibly result in his being discharged. However, the committee also found that the procedure was not all one sided in the sense that it also assisted the prosecution in the preparation of the case for trial.
Among the disadvantages, the committee mentioned that the procedure was expensive, time consuming and cumbersome, although I should stress that that comment was made in the context of the system as it operated at the time, in other words, prior to the 1967 Act. Among the extensive changes introduced by the 1967 Act was that an accused could waive the right to a preliminary examination — before that a preliminary examination was compulsory in all cases — and that the taking of evidence by deposition was discretionary.
In their conclusions, a majority of the committee were of the opinion that it was a fundamental and inherent feature of our concept of justice that an accused person should not be put on trial for a serious offence merely upon accusation. That is a fundamental issue which needs to be addressed in looking at possible changes in this area. Deputy O'Donoghue referred to this. The Deputy's Bill would ensure that a person would be put on trial for a serious offence merely upon accusation. It may be that a case can be made for that approach in the context of the fact that, in the Director of Public Prosecutions, we have an independent prosecution authority. There is also the point that accused persons now have widespread access to criminal legal aid. These measures were introduced since the 1967 Act and obviously they have an effect on an accused person's rights.
However, for whatever improvements might be made in the operation of preliminary examinations, do we really want to bring about a situation through their complete abolition where it would no longer be possible for an innocent person to say to a court: "The evidence against me does not stand up. I should not be subject to a trial"? In this context I note that what was proposed in the Progressive Democrats' Bill would allow a person to have the equivalent to a preliminary examination at the court of trial. There is a major difference here between the Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats approaches.
In 1989, the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure was asked to specifically look at a suggestion that a preliminary examination of indictable offences should take place in the court of trial. What it said at the time is relevant to the PD and Fianna Fáil proposals. The committee concluded:
It is suggested that if this proposal were implemented it would reduce delays and lead to speedier trials. The Committee does not agree with this view. It is its opinion that there is no undue delay as a result of the conducting of the preliminary examination of indictable offences in the District Court. The Committee felt that delays more often than not were attributable to the compiling and furnishing of the Book of Evidence and were not procedural.
Deputy O'Donoghue, for obvious reasons, recognises in his Bill that, even with the abolition of preliminary examininations, a book of evidence will have to be prepared and served on the accused. Obviously there will always be some lapse of time before a book of evidence can be served. I am prepared to examine what measures might be taken to remove undue delay but it will be clear that the abolition of preliminary hearing of itself would not bring about any reduction in the time taken to complete a book of evidence. Accordingly it is difficult to see how, as a matter of general practice, the abolition of preliminary hearings would contribute very substantially to the reduction of delays in bring cases to trial in the great majority of cases.
It is the case that where a preliminary examination takes place either side may seek the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of taking sworn depositions. In other words, a prospective witness in the main trial can be examined, cross-examined and the evidence adduced is transcribed and attested to there and then by the witness and the District Judge.
Deputy O'Donoghue has been particularly critical of the procedure involving the taking of depositions — a procedure that has existed since 1967 — but the reality is that it would appear that sworn depositions are the exception rather than the rule. In the majority of cases, the preliminary examination consists merely of the District Judge reviewing the book of evidence. As part of my examination of this area I recently obtained statistics in relation to cases dealt with by Dublin District Courts 4, 5 and 6. These show that, out of 354 cases sent forward for trial in the Circuit Court, in only 27 cases were sworn depositions taken, and in the majority of those 27 cases only a small number of potential witnesses were called for a deposition.
In those circumstances it would be difficult to accept as well based any contention that existing practice was a major contributor to delays in cases being brought to trial in the great majority of cases. Most of the delays that people complain to me about are by solicitors, barristers and those involved in the legal process, preparing witnesses, looking for delays in court hearings and seeking adjournments. These issues take a great toll. Deputies have raised cases which, upon examination by me, reveal that the delays have nothing to do with gummed up court lists but with somebody who does not want to give the evidence needed to progress the case to the next stage. Often, we must look to these procedures and the procedures by the lawyers involved as to why some of the delays are being incurred.
Deputy O'Donoghue might like to reflect further on the fact that abolishing the right to take depositions cuts both ways and his proposals carry with them the danger that they could deprive the prosecution of a valuable tool. For example, under our present law such depositions can be used as evidence in specified circumstances where the person who gave the evidence might not be available to attend the trial itself. I doubt that this would be perceived by the Deputy as a problem he was trying to remedy in proposing the abolition of preliminary examinations.
There may, on the face of it, be cumbersome aspects of the procedure for the taking of depositions in the infrequent situations where this arises and I am prepared to see if any improvements can be made in this regard. However, the fact is that it is because depositions are taken so relatively rarely that it is difficult to justify on economic or practical grounds measures such as the provision of special transcription facilities.
I hope I have demonstrated that what the Deputy is proposing is by no means straightforward and that it is by no means clear that its effect would be to achieve what he claims for it. As I mentioned earlier, I am prepared to consider in the light of this debate the review which I have been carrying out and the proposals contained in the Progressive Democrats Bill and this Bill, asking the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure to have another look at this matter. I am sure that, given the composition of that committee, the House will be prepared to accept that the committee would be uniquely well placed to offer considered recommendations on this matter.
Section 8 of the Bill proposes that a trial for an offence specified in the Schedule to it must take place within 90 days from the accused's first appearance in the District Court unless a High Court judge is satisfied as to why an extension — which can be applied for by either the defence or prosecution — can be granted. The Schedule lists various sexual offences under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1990, robbery under the Larceny Acts and possession of a controlled drug for the purposes of supply. This proposal may well have its origins in the magic circle of law reform, whereby a wave of a magic wand will ensure that everything will be ready for a trial which is declared to take place within 90 days.
The abolition of delays in cases being brought to trial cannot in practice be achieved by legislative fiat. In the real world it is through the provision of adequate resources that the issue of delays in trials needs in practice to be addressed and this, as the House will be aware, is being done in the context of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995. Deputies will be aware that today the Government approved the appointment of three new Supreme Court judges and three new High Court judges having observed the procedures relating to the Judicial Appointments Board outlined in the Act.
That is a joke.
While I, of course, recognise the seriousness of the offences listed in the Schedule, there are other equally serious offences that are not included. I had to bring this to the notice of Deputies when we discussed a previous Bill.
Did the Minister ever hear of Committee Stage?
Or Report Stage?
For example, the Schedule would cover a person assaulted during a robbery but not a person attacked equally badly or worse where robbery was not involved. This, of itself, is indicative of the difficulties inherent in taking this type of approach in legislation and, in any event, what is being proposed could waste court time in hearing applications under the section rather than dealing with substantive matters. It could be seen as representing an unwarranted interference in the role of the presidents of the various courts in scheduling court business. Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy O'Dea, being practising solicitors, will know this is a matter for the presidents of the courts and not for me or them.
Section 9 proposes that either the prosecutor or the accused may have a case transferred from the Circuit Criminal Court to the Central Criminal Court on the basis of the seriousness of the offence or there being a substantial point of law of public importance at issue. This is somewhat similar to an amendment put down by Deputy O'Donoghue during the debate on the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995, and it was suggested in the context of alleviating the pressure on Dublin Circuit Court. This problem was, in fact, addressed in the Act through ending the automatic right of the accused to transfer trials to the Dublin Circuit from outside it. This problem was particularly relevant to Cork. The likely practical effect of what is being proposed in this Bill would be to increase delays in the Central Criminal Court which, as the House will be aware, deals with some of the most serious criminal cases. Leaving aside issues of policy in relation to the most appropriate jurisdictions of the courts to hear particular types of cases, I am opposed to this part of the Bill on the practical grounds I mentioned.
Work is continuing on an extensive Government programme of criminal law reform. The House already has before it the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill and I will shortly introduce the Criminal Law Bill. Progressing those measures, and other measures I will bring before the House in the near future, represents the most effective way of getting comprehensive, modern and effective measures onto the Statute Book and I look forward to debating them.
Deputy O'Donoghue has consistently tried to imply that the only measure of my record and that of the Government is to be found by comparing the number of Bills I have introduced with the number he has tried, not very effectively, to introduce and that this is the only way the public will judge that record.
The Minister is imagining this.
I must disappoint the Deputy. From knocking on doors, which is the best test of finding out what the public thinks, I found that——
I found out as well.
——it is much more in tune with and understanding of what is required to change what is happening in society with regard to crime levels. The public knows that people do not become criminals at 19 years of age; it knows that young children are adopting lives of crime for many reasons other than the need for specific legislation on the Statute Book.
As I am continuing my programme and for the reasons I explained. I cannot commend the Bill to the House.
(Wexford): I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Dea.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Wexford): I compliment Deputy O'Donoghue on introducing this Bill. It proves he is aware of the problems faced by society with regard to criminals and crime. I welcome the appointment of new judges by the Minister and the announcement of a new Garda station in Blanchardstown. If I were cynical I would say this has something to do with the upcoming by-election.
It has nothing to do with this. It was announced last November before we knew there was to be a by-election.
(Wexford): Throughout the country there are Garda stations in as bad a state as the one in Blanchardstown but I do not think there will be approval for new stations within the next week or ten days. I hope such areas will not have to wait until by-elections take place for the Minister to give this approval.
Like the Minister I have been knocking on doors in rural and urban areas of Donegal. People ask me and politicians from all parties what we are going to do about crime and what is happening to criminals. People are living in fear. Not only are the elderly afraid to open their doors at night, they are almost afraid to do so during the day. Violence involving shootings and killings is rampant. People greatly appreciate the work of the Garda Síochána but they feel too much of its time is spent dealing with court cases, issuing summonses and warrants and putting people who do not pay small fines into prison. There is a need to seriously look at the role and operations of the Garda.
It is generally felt by the public that the rights of criminals seem to be more important than those of victims. Last Sunday a newspaper named drug barons and people involved in drug related crime but they seem to be able to freely walk the streets of our cities and towns without being apprehended by the Garda.
Our administration of justice is outdated, outmoded and in the dark ages. It needs to be updated, modernised and brought into the 21st century. Modern technology must be brought into operation immediately to speed up court cases. Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill leads the way in this area. It will ensure that modern swift procedures will be available to courts. The existing procedures, which are governed by the Criminal Procedures Act, 1967, are cumbersome, unwieldy and out of date. They are not in keeping with modern society as it enters the next century and they need to be changed.
The onus is on the Government to accept the Bill and to allow it to proceed to Committee Stage where it can deal with the problems which contribute to the slowness in the operation of our courts. The present process of bringing a person through the courts is tortuous and slow and is not in the interests of putting criminals behind bars if this is necessary. I hope the Bill will be taken on board, even at this late stage, by the Government. The Minister rejected it out of hand but this is not good enough. Deputy O'Donoghue has proved over the last six months by the Bills he has introduced that he and Fianna Fáil are leading the way to put in place a modern system which will deal once and for all with criminal activity.
May I share my time with Deputy Lawlor?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I commend Deputy O'Donoghue on his initiative and ingenuity in producing this necessary legislation. The absolute right of the accused to insist on depositions being taken down in long hand by a District Court clerk, which is like something out of Bleak House, is inappropriate to the Ireland of today as we approach the end of the millennium. I accept the Minister's point that written depositions are insisted on in a minority of cases. The point the Minister missed is that this procedure is now being abused by clever, resourceful and habitual criminals to frustrate the criminal trial process by delaying the trial for an inordinate and unjustifiable period. Hardened, clever, resourceful and well advised criminals who consistently and skilfully play the system to the frustration of victims and the law abiding will benefit from the Minister's refusal to accept this reasonable and narrow Bill; Deputy O'Donoghue will not fall out with me if I describe it as such.
As any practising lawyer knows, the abuse of the deposition system has now become a formidable weapon which a minority of resourceful criminals have developed to frustrate and delay the system. What mandate has the Minister to allow them to continue to abuse the system in this way? Any experienced garda will say that the innocent do not resort to these tactics. It is predictable that clever, resourceful and habitual criminals, who have succeeded in reducing the preliminary examination system introduced for the protection of the accused to a horrendously expensive parody, will resort to such tactics.
I listened carefully to the Minister's reply which listed unsustainable excuses why this necessary legislation could not be accepted. We were told that my party did not introduce such legislation when in Government. Perhaps it should have done so but no Government can do everything. We were told that this legislation was being introduced because there is a by-election. That is hardly a reason for rejecting it and for bringing in the champions of social democracy, the Labour Party, and a handful of redundant Marxists to vote it down. We were told the legislation would not tackle crime. Nobody, including Deputy O'Donoghue, has suggested that it will do so.
Legislation has its place but if it is outdated, inadequate and inappropriate, it is a hindrance to those trying to enforce law and order. That cannot be gainsaid. We were told the proposals in the Bill could add to court delays but no explanation for this was given. We were told the Minister's Bill was at an advanced stage; live horse and you will get grass. We were told innocent people could be put on trial if the horrendously expensive, cumbersome and much abused preliminary examination procedure was swept aside. Is the Minister not aware that people are put on trial for serious offences each day and that no day passes when a verdict of not guilty is handed down? We could describe such people as innocent.
The Minister said the book of evidence still must be served. Of course it must be, but what has that got to do with anything? The Minister said it might take a long time to produce the book of evidence. If it does, we will not have constant remands in and out of court like Lanigan's Ball. Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill contains time limits in which these things must be done.
The Minister said one of the main reasons for delays in criminal trials was requests from lawyers for adjournments. Again, the time limit in the Bill will deal with that issue. Lawyers cannot delay the procedure by seeking adjournments, except in the narrow circumstances set out in the Bill. As a member of the legal profession I deeply resent the fact that the Minister has effectively accused both branches of the profession of aiding and abetting criminals in their nefarious activities and in frustrating and delaying the trial process. I believe the profession would resent that also.
We accept that written depositions are the exception rather than the rule. We are trying to avoid a situation where habitual and skilful criminals use this devise, originally introduced for the protection of the accused, to delay and frustrate the criminal justice system.
For how long has that gone on?
Perhaps it has gone on since 1967 when the legislation was introduced, but there is no reason for it to continue and for the Minister to reject this Bill. The merry-go-round continues unabated despite the Minister's empty excuses and a powerful weapon developed, by and large, by the guilty to delay and frustrate justice remains intact while she prevaricates and shrinks from hard decisions, like a vampire before a crucifix.
The Minister raised the issue of the by-election. Deputy O'Donoghue referred to the Tánaiste's Pauline conversion at the start of the by-election that suddenly something must be done about the bail laws. The Minister said the Tánaiste never tied her hands and was never an obstacle to changing the bail laws. I remind the Minister that last March, in advance of the Law Reform Commission's report, she unilaterally announced that she would hold a referendum on the bail laws. The Tánaiste rubbished her in the media by describing her as the "weak link in the Government". As usual he did not say this to her face but out of the side of his mouth. The great ventriloquist dispatched his puppet, Mr. Finlay, a first class honours graduate of the Joseph Goebbel's school of news management, to the media.
While reading the weekend newspapers, I noticed that Mr. Tom Morrissey, the Fine Gael by-election candidate, has produced a plan to defeat crime in Dublin West and elsewhere. The first item on his agenda is a system in which the trial procedure could be fast tracked, that is, people could be brought to court more quickly. The proposal before the House will do that, but the Minister, a member of Mr. Morrissey's party, has announced that she will marshal her troops to vote it down. What message will that send those who are already cynical about politics and politicians?
What message has the Deputy's party sent out for the past ten years?
Although a by-election candidate from the Minister's party announced that the first item on his anti-crime agenda is a measure to fast track trials, she will marshal her troops to vote down such a proposal. What message will that send to a cynical public? The Minister, who has raised prevarication to an art form, has now institutionalised cynicism about politics and politicians.
It is a sad night for the victims of crime and for the law abiding. However, every cloud has a silver lining and it is a good night for criminals, especially habitual and well advised criminals who have used and fashioned the preliminary examination procedure into a formidable weapon to delay and frustrate the criminal trial procedure. Criminals have a reason to celebrate, despite the first item on Mr. Tom Morrissey's crime agenda. It is a sad night for Mr. Morrissey because his proposal to fight crime has been rubbished and rejected out of hand by the Minister.
It is also a sad night for the law abiding, victims of crime for those cowering behind their front doors afraid to go out at night. It is a good night for criminals who will continue to be cosseted and the innocent will continue to suffer. The Government is locked in paralysis; the Minister is locked into a programme of relentless inactivity and mentioned her formidable criminal justice programme on which she will be able to look back. She is taking her time about producing it. We have had two short pieces of criminal justice legislation in the 15 months she has held that portfolio, a period in which, for the first time——
What happened when the Deputy had responsibility in the Department?
——in the history of our State, the number of indictable crimes has exceeded 100,000——
The silence from the Deputy's corner was deafening.
——that is, over 300 per day. That is the Minister's record.
The silence on the Deputy's record was deafening.
One of those pieces of criminal justice legislation was an anaemic copy——
The only thing I cannot understand is why the Deputy remained silent so long.
——of proposals introduced by my colleague. Deputy O'Donoghue.
This is a sad night for Tom Morrissey. It is a sad night for the victims but it is a good night for the criminals and another gain for the Minister for Justice on behalf of the criminals of this country.
A sad night for credibility.
Another sad night for Fine Gael.
Debate adjourned.