Madam, – The proponents of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 appear to be supporting the Bill based on sweeping emotive statements. The lack of evidence to back up their claims is equally apparent. Liam Ó Géibheannaigh (July 10th) has fallen into the same trap as the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, and the Minister for Defence, Willie O’Dea, by making sweeping statements and allegations designed to scare the general public in to supporting this draconian legislation.
Mr Ó Géibheannaigh states that “too often criminals are able to escape prosecution and conviction, because of their capacity to intimidate potential witnesses”. Statements of this type have been made by the aforementioned Ministers and other individuals in the media. However, no evidence has been provided to support this. The proponents have not cited any cases where a person has been acquitted due to intimidation of jury members and witnesses.
It should also be pointed out that witnesses are still be required to give evidence in the Special Criminal Court and this Bill will not provide any additional protection for witnesses.
It has also been alleged that those of us who oppose this legislation are protecting “the rights of criminals” over the rights of victims. This is fundamentally incorrect. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens and every person is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If these rights are eroded, miscarriages of justice will inevitably follow.
We only need to examine cases like the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and Frank Shortt to see the consequences of eroding the standard of proof. Unfortunately, by allowing opinion evidence, this Bill is eroding these rights and substantially increasing the risk of an innocent person being jailed. The rights of victims of crime are not served by convicting an innocent person.
At the very least, our politicians should engage in a rational debate about so-called “gangland” crime and they should devise reasoned solutions, such as increased resources for the gardaí, rather than forcing through draconian legislation without considering the consequences for the constitutional rights of all citizens. – Yours etc,
Madam, – Tom Wolfe wrote that “a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested”.
It has been my experience as a practising criminal law solicitor that many people, who would generally hold quite punitive views on issues of “law and order”, become themselves deeply unsettled by the challenges posed to their liberty if they or their family members are subject to arrest and are catapulted into the world of our criminal justice system.
As is their entitlement, they insist that their rights are respected to the letter and are shocked if some rights, which they believed to be subsisting, no longer pertain.
There is a growing consensus however from many without such an experience that defence lawyers, judges and, more worryingly, due process and the presumption of innocence are all conspiring to get in the way of “the right result”.
It would be easy to swim with the tide of public opinion but the gradual dismantling of the foundations on which our criminal justice system is based has alarming parallels with a similar deviation from international best practice and standards in our transformation of our tax system from an income based model to one which relied primarily on the fruits of a property boom. The latter has brought with it great consequences and has held us up to international ridicule. One would would fear a similar result with the current Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill about to be enacted into law.
The answer does not lie with the relentless beefing up of Garda powers or the erosion of the rights of accused persons. The challenges to society posed by the rise of some types of serious crime could, should have and still can be addressed by the appropriate application of funding to address the social problems in the disadvantaged areas, primarily aimed at the early age groups. In addressing this, however, it must be accompanied by appropriate funding and training for the Garda.
Many gardaí I have spoken to are adamant that they do not feel their hands are being tied in the fight against crime by the rights accorded to accused persons but by serious underfunding in the area of recruitment and equipment.
These two areas are where the real debate should be taking place but successive administrations have instead used draconian legislation as a political fig leaf. I think you may find that many who oppose the legislation would have no difficulty whatsoever with an adequately staffed, well trained, unarmed and visible Garda force.
The difficulty for the minister and his predecessors is that such an approach costs money but the removal of civil liberties does not, at least in the short term. – Yours, etc