THE Irish Commission for Justice and Peace, which advises the Catholic Hierarchy on justice issues, has strongly criticised the Government's proposal to change the bail laws.
In a statement this morning, the commission says the proposed change would lead to people being interned without trial for a limited period on the word of a senior Garda officer.
The commission says the single justification offered for changing the bail laws is to prevent crime. However, there are three main reasons for opposing the referendum: it has a disproportionately negative impact on the fundamental right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in law; its effectiveness as a crime prevention measure is unproven and it diverts attention from other measures which are equally if not more necessary and do not require new legislation, let alone a referendum.
The commission points out that anyone refused bail under the proposed legislation would be sent to prison, "not for something they had done, but for something they had not done".
All that was required was for a senior Garda officer to say that the accused person might "independently of what they have been charged with, commit some other crime while out on hail.
"There is no way open to someone in this situation to establish their innocence, for they have not and could not be charged with any specific crime. They are, for a limited period, being interned without trial."
The commission's statement goes on: "If the referendum is approved, it will create an inconsistent legal and moral situation; whereas at present no one suspected of having committed a crime can be deprived of liberty until sufficient evidence to justify a charge has been established, under the new situation it will be possible to deprive anyone who has been charged with a wide range of specified crimes of his or her liberty, on grounds unrelated to any specific charge, namely because it is alleged that they are likely to commit a crime."
The commission proposes that the existing bail laws should be tightened up as an alternative to changing them. It points out that under current court practice, "bail is rarely if ever forfeited".
Similarly, those who go bail do not generally understand that they can ask at any time to be discharged from their responsibility if they fear the accused will violate the terms of bail".
The commission said the courts did not have the option, as in Britain, of "requiring people to reside in bail hostels during the pre trial period". The cost of accommodating charged persons in such hostels would be much less than sending them to prison, it said.
The commission also asks for concrete evidence to show that changing the bail laws will be effective as a crime prevention measure. It says that "reliance on anecdotal and unsubstantiated evidence" is not enough to justify a constitutional change which will not only make "a serious dent in the presumption of innocence", but is also likely to cost the taxpayer a significant amount in extra prison places.
It concludes with a critical look at the Government's promise of 800 extra prison places by the end of 1997, and whether this will be enough to cope with the likelihood of increased numbers of people going to jail as a result of suffer bail laws.
Using the Department of Justice's 1994 estimate of a shortfall of 825 prison places, and making the assumption that the increase in crime over the next few years will be only half what it was in the decade up to 1992, the commission suggests that the change in the bail laws could contribute to a shortfall of more than 900 places.
The commission is concerned that without a realistic assessment of whether overall prisoner numbers are expected to rise, it is impossible to measure how new prison accommodation will cope with the expected rise in numbers caused by changed bail laws.
It says it is impossible to gauge whether more rather than fewer convicted prisoners will have to be "released prematurely to make way for the additional numbers who may be refused bail".