A chara. The Government plans to hold a referendum on its proposed amendment to the Constitution to change the bail laws on November 28th, less than five weeks' time. Why is it, then, that we have heard more about the proposed and postponed referendums i.e. on Cabinet confidentiality and the right of emigrants to vote, than on the Bail Referendum?
It appears that the Government fully hoped that this referendum would pass by with the minimum amount of public questioning and debate. Last week the Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, said she had no plans to provide information to the public on the issue. The Government has now reluctantly agreed, following calls by the Right to Bail Campaign, to publish a public information notice in national and local newspapers, setting out the case for and against the amendment.
Publicly the Government claims that amending the Constitution to restrict an individual's right to bail, if there is a suspicion he or she might offend while on bail, will impact on crime. It claims that the supposed reduction in crime levels would adequately compensate for the proposed infringement of civil liberties. Privately, however, the Realpolitik of the situation is quite different.
The motivation behind the proposed amendment has less to do with addressing crime, and more to do with saving face for the Government as we face into an election year. Mrs Nora Owen has admitted that the Government has done no research into the percentage of crimes committed by people on bail. This proposal would simply institutionalise the revolving door system already in operation, with convicted prisoners being released early to make space for large numbers of people who have not even had a trial, and who quite possibly may be released after long periods on remand.
The experience in Britain has shown that the change in bail laws introduced there in 1976 has had zero impact on the levels of crime. Available options to reduce the occurrence of people on bail offending, such as speedier trials and appeals as well as consecutive sentences, are not being implemented.
Given all this, why then is the Government intent on having a referendum on an unnecessary and ineffective amendment to the Constitution? The answer lies in its desperate need to create the illusion that it is addressing crime. The proposed amendment is a cosmetic and dishonest move. Instead of allowing it to pull a fast one on the electorate, we should be demanding that the Government begin to tackle seriously the spiralling drugs crisis. - Is mise, le meas,
Lombard Street West,
Dublin 8.