Not much that comes out of Mrs Nora Owen's offices these days is likely to be accepted in the bosom of public sentiment without the deepest scepticism. Even her colleagues in government, seeking to shore her up in present difficulties, concede that her Department is in the business of crisis management.
That it should be so is an indictment of those who have failed to provide it with forward looking policies and who viewed it over many years as a pork barrel of patronage and perks. In operational terms, the Department has been reactive rather than proactive. And it is surely nauseating to hear politicians denigrate by implication officials who have obediently done no more and no less than what was demanded by those in political authority.
But it would be regrettable if the Government's proposal to amend the constitutional provisions applying to bail were to be undermined by the Minister's shambolic performance over recent weeks. The constitutional amendment is necessary and overdue. The fact that it is to be given effect in a legal and administrative landscape which is otherwise far from perfect ought not to obscure the issue.
There is no other jurisdiction in the western world where the courts are prohibited from taking a view on whether an accused person is likely to commit further crimes if set at liberty until trial. And while there are places where trials are heard more expeditiously than here, there are many places - including EU States - where the interval between arrest and trial can be very much longer. The fact that the courts system can be unconscionably slow does not ipso facto make a case for turning loose persons who are likely to commit further crime before they finally go down.
Much argument continues to take place on the numbers of offences which are committed by persons on bail. Even if all such offences were eliminated, it has been suggested, the total level of crime would not drop dramatically. That remains to be seen. But what is quite certain is that a relatively small number of quite serious and potentially deadly crimes would be prevented. Armed robbers, for example, are notorious for their depredations while on bail. It cannot be right that people who use firearms and who may have been arrested at great risk to life and limb should be put at liberty to repeat their offences pending trial. No garda or citizen should have to risk death or injury in such circumstances. And no State should be without the power to prevent it happening.
The bail proposal seeks to bring Irish criminal law into line with that in virtually every other country of the western world. Some critics suggest that the State is seeking to arm itself with unique and draconian powers. That is not the reality.
The Government's proposal ought to be supported, notwithstanding the many unsatisfactory aspects of the criminal justice system which are organically connected to the trial process. Much can be done to shorten waiting time between charge and trial. Penalties for breaches of bail terms can be made more meaningful. Effective provision could yet be made for consecutive rather than concurrent jail terms for those who commit further crime while on bail.
Above all else, the Government must commit itself to the provision of decent and humane remand conditions. Mrs Owen's programme of additional prison places will hardly match the rise in prison populations. Overcrowding, poor conditions and early releases will continue to be a feature of the prison system unless the Government puts more money where its mouth has been in recent days.