SEANAD REPORT:IT WAS wrong that the criminal procedure Bill would create two categories of crime victim, Paul Bradford(FG) said.

The Bill proposes to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply for the quashing of certain acquittals and the ordering of retrials.

Mr Bradford called on the Minister for Justice to explain why the provision could not be made retrospective. He trusted that it would be used in an exceptional and a sparing fashion, but any law had to be about justice. How could it be just and fair that victims against whom crimes had been committed before the new law came into force would not be able to have the retrial provision used on their behalf? If we were to have confidence in our entire body of law, justice must be seen to be fair and to be applied to everybody.

Eugene Regan, Fine Gael justice spokesman, said he could see no impediment to making the change to the double jeopardy rule retrospective, as had been done in Britain. The whole purpose of abolishing the rule in the first instance was to restore confidence in the administration of justice.

Disagreeing, Ivana Bacik(Lab) said: "I am glad to see it is prospective only. Indeed, I believe there would be constitutional difficulties if it was not." Minister for Justice Dermot Ahernsaid the introduction of retrospectivity would be a direct intervention against previous judgments. Where the possibility of revisiting an acquittal had not existed, it would infringe a defendant's rights under the Constitution to apply such an approach retrospectively.

He was conscious that such constitutional requirements could be cold comfort to the victims of crime and to their families. He had met with one family in relation to an acquittal situation and had indicated clearly to them that the retrospection issue had been looked at very intensely, with input from the Attorney General’s office.