The Minister for Justice, Equality & Defence, Alan Shatter TD, today received Government approval for the publication of the General Scheme and drafting of a Criminal Procedure Bill.
Minister Shatter stated, “The primary aim of this Bill will be to provide greater efficiency and fairness in the trial process and to reduce delays in the criminal system generally.” The Scheme of the Bill provides for new Preliminary Trial Hearings. Minister Shatter commented that “The introduction of preliminary trial hearings will allow for a more efficient and effective trial system. They will ensure that procedural arguments which arise during trials at present can be dealt with before a jury is empanelled, thereby saving time and allowing juries to focus on the facts of the case.”
The scheme of the Bill deals with a number of other issues such as electronic transmission of warrants, more efficient use of videolink hearings and the provision of information to Juries.
Minister Shatter continued, “We must recognise the considerable efforts made by the Judiciary and the staff of the Courts Service to deliver an efficient and high quality service to all who pass through the courts, particularly at a time when there is increasing pressure on resources. I believe this legislation will enhance the ability of the courts to improve the efficiency and fairness of the trial process, particularly in complex cases. It is designed to ensure that judges have the utmost discretion to ensure the integrity and fairness of the system.”
The Scheme will be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for consideration. Departmental officials will consult with relevant stakeholders on the proposals.
The General Scheme is available on the Department’s website at www.justice.ie
3 April 2014
ENDS
Note for Editors
Main Provisions of the Bill
Preliminary Trial Hearings - Following from the recommendations of various expert reports over recent years, the preliminary trial hearing is intended to provide for the widest range of matters which a court could reasonably address in advance of the empanelling of a jury. The intention is that, insofar as possible, all contentious matters concerning the process of the trial and the evidence to be admitted will be settled before a jury is empanelled. The court should then be able to allow a smooth presentation of the evidence to the jury in as efficient a manner as possible, thus allowing them to focus on their tasks as adjudicators of fact without unnecessary interruptions for legal argument. Equally, the preliminary trial hearing will allow for matters which would ultimately prevent a case being submitted to a jury to be identified in advance, thus avoiding the unnecessary empanelling of a jury and subjection of a person to an unwarranted trial.
Declaration Of Constructive Acquittal - As it stands, Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 provides for the prosecution to appeal an acquittal on a point of law where a person is tried on indictment and acquitted. Head 3 provides an avenue to a section 23 appeal in circumstances where essential prosecution evidence is excluded at a point in the trial (or at a preliminary trial hearing) such that the DPP could not in good faith prosecute the trial to a point where an acquittal on the merits, or an acquittal by direction of the judge could be reached. This head will allow the prosecutor to seek a “declaration of constructive acquittal”. The court may only grant such a declaration where it is satisfied that the exclusion of the evidence concerned rendered a conviction unlikely. The effect of such a declaration would be to allow the DPP to appeal the exclusion of the evidence and to seek a retrial.
Head 4 Judicial Review and Slip Rule – At present the slip rule allows for minor clerical errors or slips in the orders of a court to be corrected by the court which made the original order. This head provides for an expansion of the slip rule to allow for the correction of slightly more substantial errors. This head also includes a requirement for alternative remedies to be considered before judicial review can be sought.
Head 5 - Electronic Transmission of Warrants – This head is to clarify that warrants can be issued and transmitted electronically. This will provide for greater efficiency by removing the need, for example, for a prison officer to travel to court to receive a warrant in person.
Head 6 - Substitution of Section 33 of Prisons Act 2007 – This amendment of section 33 of the 2007 Act will remove the need for an application in advance of a videolink hearing. The types of proceedings which can be heard via videolink will be expanded to include arraignment hearings and plea and sentence hearings (where the parties consent) and appeal hearings. A court can direct that a prisoner attend a hearing in person where any one of a broad list of criteria applies.
Head 7 - Remand Where Failure to Establish or Breakdown of Videolink - This provision will help to clarify the ability of the courts to deal with remands where technical problems arise.
Head 8 - Substitution of Section 34 of Criminal Procedure Act 2010 - In line with efforts to make trials run more smoothly, greater notice will be required where the defence seeks to adduce expert evidence. At present, trials often have to be postponed while the prosecution seeks expert evidence to rebut that submitted close to the trial date by the defence.
Head 9 - Provision of Information to Juries – This head will replace various existing enactments allowing for transcripts, summaries etc. to be given to juries in trials for certain fraud, competition, and revenue offences and replace them with a single provision covering trials for all types of offences.
Pre-trial procedures have been considered by a number of groups including the Working Group on the Jurisdiction of the Courts (Fennelly Report), the Report of the Committee on Pilot Preliminary Hearings, the National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women Legal Issues Sub-Committee, the Working Group to Identify and Report on Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System, and most recently by the Expert Group On Article 13 Of The European Convention On Human Rights (McDermott Report).