SEANAD REPORT:IVANA BACIK (Ind) questioned whether a sufficient standard had been set for departure from the double jeopardy rule whereby an acquitted person cannot be pursued again in respect of the same offence. Speaking in the debate on the Criminal Procedure Bill 2009, she said the expert group which had examined that matter had given two examples; DNA evidence or a confession.

“To me those seem to be perhaps the only two examples of new and compelling evidence where a retrial order might be possible.”

In regard to double jeopardy, the group had recommended that the prosecution right could be exercised if the Supreme Court so decided.

“In other words, it recommends that this be a matter for the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Criminal Appeal. Given the lack of consistency encountered by practitioners in judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal, this is a worthwhile recommendation. A difficulty arises from this proposal in that there would then be a problem as to where an appeal could be taken.”

However, there was also a problem in that there was no right of appeal for the acquitted person unless the Director of Public Prosecutions or the court agreed it. There could be a problem constitutionally in restricting this right. The Bill passed second stage.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said victims of crime were being given greater opportunities to participate in the legal process. In addition, the gap in our law that allowed guilty people to escape the consequences of their crimes was being addressed.

It would be unacceptable if information not presented at a trial became available by means of an impact statement.Mr Ahern also said he accepted they must be cautious about changes to operating the double jeopardy rule.