Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Dec 2017

Vol. 963 No. 3

Bail (Amendment) Bill 2017: First Stage

I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Bail Act 1997 and to provide for related matters.

The Bill seeks to amend the laws that operate with respect to bail and the granting of bail. At present, bail can be refused if it is the case there is a threat or it is believed an individual may commit a crime in the future. That change happened as a result of an amendment to the Constitution made at the end of the last century which was given legislative effect by the Bail Act 1997. Part of the reason I am introducing the Bill is the very real fear and concern in many parts of the country of the threat posed from burglary and aggravated burglary.

Recently I was at a public meeting in Cavan at which many harrowing accounts were given by individuals of acts of burglary and aggravated burglary that were committed against them and their families. It is not just an issue that affects rural communities. We read in the paper and online today that an individual in Terenure, which is in my constituency, was taken from his home and brought to an ATM. Money was forced from him in that way. There is a very real and legitimate fear and concern in our society about burglary and aggravated burglary. I am conscious there is not one solution to the issues. Very many of the solutions rest on resources but we cannot ignore the fact that many of the crimes committed are committed by people who are on bail or who previously committed offences.

We note from statistics available to us that in 2016, 13% for all crimes were committed by people out on bail, an increase on the previous year which was 11%. Data from the Irish Prison Service recidivism study show that a recidivism rate of 79.5% exists among persons in prison for burglary and related offences. That is the highest rate for any offence and is considerably above the overall recidivism rate of 62%.

I note that the Government recently strengthened the bail laws. That was introduced through the House. We need to revisit it and need to tighten them even further.

This legislation proposes amending section 2 of the Bail Acts as they exist. Under the law at present where an application for bail is made by a person charged with a serious offence, a court may refuse the application if the court is satisfied that such refusal is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person. The Oireachtas is entitled to strengthen that test. This legislation proposes that instead of it being discretionary, it would be mandatory on a court to refuse bail if the court is satisfied that such refusal is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person. It is not removing consideration of the issue from a court, but it is stating that the Oireachtas believes it is appropriate and necessary for bail to be refused in circumstances where the court believes it is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of a further offence.

The Bill also seeks to further amend section 2B of the legislation which will have the effect that the consideration of factors to be considered by a court in refusing bail should be limited. If an individual has already been convicted of a serious offence and is applying for bail in respect of another offence, the presumption should be against the grant of bail. If bail is to be granted, we state in a further section that it should only be granted in those circumstances if the candidate for bail is subjected to electronic monitoring.

We need to recognise that electronic monitoring exists in our criminal justice system. However, I am sure the Government will agree it is not used as effectively as it could be. It is used to a much more widespread degree in Northern Ireland where it is very effective. If the option for an individual is that he or she remains incarcerated or is subject to electronic monitoring, most individuals would favour the electronic monitoring because they retain their liberty, but are subject to scrutiny and monitoring by the State at that stage.

That is the legislation we seek to introduce and we hope to bring it forward for Second Stage in due course. I would welcome any proposals or amendments Members of the House might have.

Is the Bill opposed?

Question put and agreed to.

Since this is a Private Members' Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members' time.

I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn