We will now consider the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014. There is only one amendment tabled but if members want to intercede or comment on a section, as I call out the section or reach it, they should feel free to let me know and they can do so. Otherwise, I will merely proceed to dispose of the sections.
Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 29, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"36. Data may not be transferred to another jurisdiction for the purposes of it being used against an individual who has already stood trial and been acquitted in this jurisdiction.".
We raised this in the context of the debate on what has become the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2015 and the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, suggested that - as a matter on which to seek clarification and assurance - it might be more appropriate to this Bill. That is the background to the amendment.
While the Minister agrees with the principle behind this proposal, we are unable to accept the amendment because the provisions are already included in the Bill. I refer Deputy Mac Lochlainn to section 14(1)(c) which comprehends refusal to confiscate and which states, "that compliance with the external confiscation order in relation to the offence that resulted in the making of that order would infringe the ne bis in idem principle". It means a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. It is often referred to as the double-jeopardy principle. In addition, subsection (1)(e) already states that "the criminal conduct concerned was either committed outside the territory of the designated state concerned or committed wholly or partly in the State". Each state only has jurisdiction over offences committed within its borders. The new section 60E.(1)(a), which deals with refusal to execute external financial penalty order, states that an order would be refused where "a financial penalty order has been made in the State against the defendant in respect of the conduct which resulted in the making of the external financial penalty order". In addition, subsection (1)(e) provides for refusal where the criminal conduct concerned was either committed outside the territory of the designated state concerned or committed wholly or partly in the State. A similar provision applies in regard to the EU-Japan mutual legal assistance agreement to which we are giving effect. Article 11, grounds for refusal, provides that assistance will be refused where "the person, who is subject to criminal investigations, prosecutions or other proceedings, including judicial proceedings, for which the assistance is requested, in the requesting State, has already been finally convicted or acquitted for the same facts in a Member State or Japan".
I should also point out to the Deputy that there is already a general provision in section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 - the legislation we are amending today - which provides that the procedures in dealing with such requests may not be contrary to the fundamental principles of the laws of the State, including the principle of ne bis in idem. We have no difficulty with the thrust of the amendment but it is already catered for in this and other legislation.
I am happy with the response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
I agree with the Title to the Bill. On the issue of enhancing co-operation with other EU member states in the context of fighting crime, it is important that we again look closely at what is envisaged. Enhanced mutual co-operation is essential for fighting crime, particularly in the context of international drugs gangs. Horrific murders have been perpetrated in our own country in respect of such gangs. This is a very serious issue for the State and its citizens and also for the international community. That is why I support the principles of this legislation. The horrific problem of people trafficking is also relevant here. It is important that we constantly remind ourselves that this is going on and that people are being abused. We have witnessed cases of this in our own State recently. I raise these issues in the context of the broader issue of the implementation of this legislation. People are suffering right across the European Union.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.