Madam, – The focus on these pages from commentators on the new Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill, both legal professionals and otherwise appears to be on the extension of jury less trials and admissibility of Garda opinion evidence.
Nobody has apparently considered the provisions of the bill which allow a suspect’s detention to be extended by a District Court judge without the presence of the accused person or their legal advisors. The Constitution under Article 40.4.2 guarantees a right of a prisoner to petition the High Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus to require him be produced before the High Court with his jailer having to justify the legality of his detention.
If a prisoner were to challenge his continuing detention the State would be required to provide to the High Court in the presence of the prisoner, the evidence it had before the District Court judge he exercised his discretion to extend the prisoner’s period of detention. This would appear to negate any benefit by having the District Court detention hearings in complete secrecy. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I have read many of the criticisms levelled at our letter (July 8th) with dismay. The main argument advanced appears to be that legitimate concerns raised about provisions of the new Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill should be dismissed, without debate, because we are simply “fat-cat lawyers” profiting from setting the guilty free on technicalities.
Can I respectfully ask: is this seriously a well founded reason to reject the many concerns raised?
The 133 lawyers who signed this letter are both barristers and solicitors; practitioners who both prosecute and defend in our criminal justice system. While some are indeed eminent, others are very junior practitioners working in the District Court, where a remand fee of around €30 applies for legal aid cases. The issue is not whether lawyers are well paid but whether the concerns we raised are legitimate.
In recent years with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2006; the Criminal Justice Act 2007 and now the Criminal Justice (Amendment) 2009, we have seen a worrying erosion in the rights of all of our citizens to a fair trial; measures which are disproportionate and in the absence of proper funding for our Garda, will do little to tackle the roots of gangland crime.
We should remember lessons learnt from the McBrearty case; there is real danger that the widespread powers now being implemented might be open to abuse. There are no oppressions which a government may not authorise by law; but just because “the power is out” doesn’t mean we should unplug our constitution. – Yours, etc,