Bacik, Ivana

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

Seanad Eireann Debate
Vol. 199 No. 1

First Page Previous Page Page of 14 Next Page Last Page

Order of Business.

I join colleagues in welcoming the deferral of tomorrow’s proposed strike. Following a bleak week, flood waters are receding just as the prospect of a strike has receded but we are still facing into ...More Button

NUI students have also raised this. The money is not being spent on improved student facilities. Debates are needed on funding for the third level sector and early childhood education. I have calle...More Button

Amendment put.
Yes IndicatorVoted Yes More Button

Criminal Procedure Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

I support Senator Regan’s amendments. Earlier, we debated other amendments concerning the treatment of victims. At that stage the Minister stated in his view it was not appropriate to place those in...More Button

Perhaps I was too stingy with my compliment.More Button

I move amendment No. 32: In page 11, line 11, to delete “Court of Criminal Appeal” and substitute “Supreme Court”. This amendment is self-explanatory. In my contribution on Second Stage of the Bill ...More Button

I should have noted that the Government’s long-standing policy has been to abolish the Court of Criminal Appeal. Legislation introduced in 1995 envisaged the subsumption of the Court of Criminal Appe...More Button

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. I hope Mrs. Justice Susan Denham’s recommendations will be taken on board. The piecemeal development of the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appe...More Button

I move amendment No. 33: In page 11, line 20, after “adduced” to insert “by the prosecution”. This amendment is intended to be more precise about the definition of “new and compelling evidence” in se...More Button

I will not press the amendment at this stage but there is a certain ambiguity in the wording of the section because there could be evidence which was known to the defence during the trial but “which c...More Button

I move amendment No. 34: In page 11, line 26, after “concerned” to insert the following: “, for example DNA evidence or an admission by the person concerned”. This seeks to amend the definition of “ne...More Button

It is not envisaged in the section that just because DNA evidence comes forward that it is necessarily new and compelling, because it obviously must implicate the person concerned with a high degree o...More Button

I disagree with Senator Regan. I am glad to see it is prospective only because there would be constitutional difficulties if it was not so. I am also glad the Minister has confirmed the safeguards t...More Button

Yes. I presumed we would deal with that when dealing with section 8.More Button

I move amendment No. 35: In page 12, subsection (5), line 36, after “concerned” to insert the following: “and the person may appear and be heard by the Court”. The amendment is self-explanatory. It s...More Button

I will withdraw the amendment in light of what the Minister has said but I would like clarification on the relationship to section 16, or at least an indication from the Minister that he will address ...More Button

I move amendment No. 36: In page 12, subsection (6), line 38, after “Court” to insert the following: “if satisfied that the Director has given the person concerned all reasonable notice to facilitate ...More Button

I am interested in the Minister’s use of language which illustrates why we must be so careful with section 8 to ensure there are sufficient safeguards. The Minister commented on a person absconding b...More Button

The person is not subject to any criminal charge.More Button

I know “abscond” is not a legal term but the use of the word implies that the person would leave with the charge hanging over them in some way. This clearly deals with somebody who has been acquitted...More Button

I have spoken on section 8. I welcome the safeguards and the fact the section will only operate prospectively. My amendments were designed to ensure the safeguards were watertight for the person acq...More Button

Will the Minister deal with the issue raised in section 16?More Button

I move amendment No. 37: In page 18, subsection (1), lines 8 to 11, to delete all words from and including “if” in line 8 down to and including “Court” in line 11. The amendment proposes to delete the...More Button

I acknowledge the existing provisions are discriminatory but this is a new provision relating to appeals specifically against a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 10, that is, wher...More Button

I will press an amendment on this matter on Report Stage. I am grateful to Senator Regan for his words of support. The debate was adjourned on this amendment as the Senator was indicating the reason...More Button

I apologise; the Minister did respond. There was then another round of discussion.More Button

I do not want to labour the point but my position changed slightly as I was replying to the Minister’s first response to the amendment. I indicated that I would change the wording of the amendment an...More Button

I am obliged. I withdraw the amendment on this Stage in the light of the Minister’s comments.More Button

I spoke about this section while discussing section 8. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s remarks on a person in respect of whom an application for a retrial order is being made under section 8. P...More Button

I thank the Minister for clarifying that the person will be at liberty pending the hearing of an application under section 8. I understood him to state that prior to section 16 being brought into ope...More Button

I said the reason I opposed the section was that I was not clear about the purpose. The Minister clarified that and I will table an amendment on Report Stage. I am grateful to him. The Minister said...More Button

There might well be a situation in which the Director of Public Prosecutions makes a section 8 application without a section 16 application having been made first. Section 16 is not a necessary prere...More Button

I move amendment No. 44: In page 24, subsection (1), line 19, before “arising” to insert the following: “which gives to a directed verdict or which prevented the jury from considering evidence which w...More Button

I am grateful that the Minister has indicated his acceptance of the principle of my amendment. I was concerned about the lack of specificity in section 23 as it stands and I welcome that he plans to ...More Button

I am happy to support the amendment in principle. I accept that it is a significant departure but it causes great distress to victims, and particularly to their families, when the accused raises prov...More Button

In response to the Minister’s point about disparity between defence and State, it goes without saying that the might of the State is weighed against the defence. That has always been recognised in th...More Button

I am very conscious that there has been a long body of case law on the issue of presentation of evidence, and I declare an interest as I acted in one case that went to the High Court on this. I welco...More Button

I do not think the 23 days is stringent. The prosecution must do it at least 23 days before the trial, but at any point in the months preceding the trial. It is a tight onus on the defence or the de...More Button

Certainly, but there is a balance and I do not think it is being struck here.More Button

Labour Services (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Question put: “That the words proposed to be deleted stand.”
No IndicatorVoted No More Button

Amendment put.
Yes IndicatorVoted Yes More Button

Last Updated: 15/12/2010 16:52:00 First Page Previous Page Page of 14 Next Page Last Page