Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:4 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has proposals to amend the law on bail; and if so, the details of same. [42104/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraThursday, 7 December 2006
Ceisteanna (4)
Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)
I propose to bring forward a number of amendments to the law on bail in the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which I hope to publish early next year.
As the Deputy is aware, two statutes are relevant to the operation of the arrangements for bail. The Bail Act 1997 deals with the system generally and gives effect to the terms of the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Criminal Justice Act 1984 provides a sentence of imprisonment passed on a person for an offence committed while on bail must be consecutive on any sentence passed on him or her for a previous offence.
Earlier this year I announced the Government had approved the drafting of the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which will address a number of issues relating to consecutive sentences for offences committed while on bail. As I mentioned, section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 provides that any sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed while on bail must be consecutive on a sentence passed for a previous offence, or on the sentence last due to expire if more than one is being served. It also provides that where a consecutive sentence applies, the fact the offence was committed while the person was on bail shall be treated as an aggravating factor by the court when determining the sentence. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated that, at present, the intention of the consecutive sentence provisions can be avoided in certain circumstances, namely, where an offender is not brought before the court for the offences in the chronological order in which they were committed. This can happen due to the varying pace of investigations into different offences. The criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill will close off that loophole.
The Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the ad hoc group on the administration of bail which was established in response to the concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the 2001 annual report. These concerns related to the administration of bail with particular regard to inefficiencies in the system for collecting money due on foot of the estreatment of bail. The ad hoc group reported in October 2003 and work is ongoing on the preparation of legislation for inclusion in the Bill to reflect the group’s recommendations.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House:
The amendments I propose to introduce will allow the courts the option to set bail terms that do not include financial commitments. Alternatives might include reporting to Garda stations or surrender of passports. They will also allow the courts discretion on whether they order estreatment, provide that estreatment be enforced by way of a penal warrant which is the mechanism applicable to the collection of fines rather than the current system of distress warrants. They will also extend the six months time limit to 12 months during which summary proceedings may be brought for breach of bail conditions, or alternatively, treat such failure as an indictable offence where no time limit would apply. I believe these proposals will address the issues that gave rise to the concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Will the Minister accept the number of serious crimes committed by people on bail is a major problem? The most recent figures available suggest these total more than 5,000 per year. The 2004 figures were 5,300 and the latest figures I have are for 2005 which saw an increase to 5,600.
I note the minor changes proposed by the Minister. Does he agree more radical changes should be made to our system to cope with this serious problem? Should the Director of Public Prosecutions be able to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the grant of bail? At present, the Director of Public Prosecutionsd can appeal to the Supreme Court. However, as the Minister knows, that is a rarefied body which is difficult to access.
Does the Minister accept a case can be made for extending considerably the provision whereby bail can only be granted by the High Court in serious drugs or firearms cases? At present, the only provisions which require granting of bail by the High Court are murder, piracy, genocide and treason. A person in a serious drug or firearm case should not be able to walk into the District Court and be granted bail. The matter should automatically go to the High Court.
Does the Minister have views on the use or availability of electronic tagging where someone is released on bail? Does he accept that in circumstances where someone is convicted of a serious offence and it is clear a custodial sentence will be applied, the issue of whether that person is released on bail should be separately argued before the judge? What often happens is such a person is automatically released on continuous bail pending a sentencing hearing that may not take place for six or nine months. Does the Minister agree there is scope for change in that situation?
I agree with the Deputy that the figures are a matter of concern. Without doubt, people of criminal propensity tend to abuse bail when they are given it.
Yes.
It is a long-established pattern. The deterrent of making the sentence for any subsequent offence run consecutively does not seem to be as strong as it was hoped at the time of the bail referendum and when the 1984 legislation was passed. I agree with the Deputy that this is the case. There are a number of issues involved. First, the Deputy raised the possibility of extending the type and number of offences in respect of which bail would not be granted, other than by a decision of the High Court, in regard to serious offences. I suppose the Deputy possibly has in mind drug dealing and homicide offences other than murder and the like . There is an argument for this. The only problem is, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, one is then stuck with the proposition that an appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court is a bit improbable and, therefore, one would have to restructure the Court of Criminal Appeal as an almost permanent court which would be available to decide on an appellate basis these kind of cases.
There is a strong case for this.
I am not suggesting the Deputy's idea is wrong but it would perhaps be better if we considered giving some level of the Judiciary, perhaps a Circuit Court judge, the right to make decisions in respect of a series of bail issues and then have an appeal to a single High Court judge. Having three judges sitting, as the Court of Criminal Appeal normally would consist of, on bail appeals could be quite a significant deployment of judicial resources especially when, by definition, the right of appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions would be in cases where the first judge had taken the view that the person should be set at liberty. There is an issue here which will be dealt with in the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which will afford this House the opportunity on Committee Stage to consider amplifications of the bail jurisdiction or variations of it at the moment. It is a difficult issue and I fully agree with the Deputy that it is not one where the present situation is satisfactory.