Tánaiste and Minister for Justice Michael McDowell is to set up an expert group to examine whether certain elements of the criminal justice system need to be altered in favour of victims rather than criminals.
The system is sometimes too heavily weighed in favour of the accused and the rights of victims of crime "may have unintentionally become secondary", Mr McDowell said in a speech this evening entitled Rebalancing Criminal Justice.
In the lengthy speech, at a public meeting in Limerick, Mr McDowell said Irish society would have to ask itself "difficult questions" and consider changing key elements of our criminal justice system.
Tánaiste Michael McDowell
He said changes in relation to the accused's right to silence and in relation to juries' knowledge of an accused person's previous convictions should be studied.
He told the meeting: "I want tonight to raise the possibility that we, as a society, must now face up to difficult questions, not as a substitute for good and effective policing and criminal investigation, but as a means of ensuring that the scales of justice are held evenly between those who would break the law and those who would uphold it, between the accused and the prosecutor and between the criminal, the victim and the community.
"Now is the time for some far reaching questioning and thinking."
In relation to the right to silence, the Tánaiste said the focus was "almost exclusively on the rights of the accused."
"Of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong in that of course. But where do the rights of victims stand in such cases?
"Has the time come to consider broadening the circumstances in which an inference can be drawn from the failure of an accused to respond to fair questioning duly recorded not as sufficient proof of guilt but as corroboration of other evidence of guilt?" he asked.
Speaking on the admissabilty of evidence concerning an accused person's previous convictions, Mr McDowell pointed out that if a defendant does not give evidence, the prosecution may not tell the jury or judge of the his or her bad character or convictions.
This can only happen where an accused attacks the character of a prosecution witness in court.
"Why should the fact that a person has been convicted of serious offences in the past be concealed from those who have to decide on the credibility of his evidence. Where credibility is in issue, why is a central matter which can go the heart of that issue concealed from the jury? " Mr McDowell asked.
"The presumption of innocence of the charge before the jury is one thing; but is presuming that all witnesses, including the accused, are equally credible, frankly speaking, a fiction too far in many cases?"
Another area that should be considered, according to Mr McDowell, is the "double jeopardy" rule. He said it was possible under the rule that a guilty peron could "go around boasting that he or she has got away with some serious crime" despite the emergence of "new and compelling evidence", such as a new witnesses coming forward, DNA or fingerprint evidence.
He said the issue of allowing the prosecution to make statements before sentencing should also be looked at.
"I intend therefore to set up a small group to examine these topics in detail with a view to seeing what difficulties and challenges they currently pose and whether any changes might be suggested that might lead to improvement," he said.
"Perhaps on examination of these topics, some improvement can be introduced so that the fine balance between the right of the prosecution and the rights of the defence can be maintained.
"Equally it might be the case that the outcome of this study would be that no change is needed and that for all the flaws, if there are any, we should 'leave well enough alone'."
