McDowell concerned over safety of gardaí

Seanad report: Defending his action in pressing ahead with the Criminal Justice Bill, Minister for Justice Michael McDowell …

Seanad report:Defending his action in pressing ahead with the Criminal Justice Bill, Minister for Justice Michael McDowell said that his nightmare scenario was that he would find himself attending the funerals of a number of gardaí because some drug-crazed scion of a drug gang had let fly with a machine pistol at a squad car.

If that happened, the pressure would be on him to explain why he had not done anything when it was so obvious that this was building up. "Thank God, members of An Garda Síochána have not been killed." But he was aware that a garda had been hit by gunfire in the Ballyfermot area of Dublin a few months ago.

Mr McDowell said that the case for resolute legislative action to combat gangland crime had been buttressed by the rash of horrific murders last November and December and by the slaying of a motorcycle passenger in Limerick this week. He also understood that an individual had been arrested in Dublin yesterday in possession of a Kalashnikov rifle.

The Bill passed the committee and final stages.

READ MORE

The Minister did not accept the 28 committee stage amendments tabled by Fine Gael justice spokesman Maurice Cummins. Rejecting Mr Cummins's claim that they were engaged in an "absolute farce" and that the Upper House was being reduced to the role of a rubber stamp, Mr McDowell said that the proposed amendments had been rejected in the Dáil or were not appropriate.

Dealing with Mr Cummins's suggestion that powers be introduced for the setting aside of court acquittals where new evidence became available, the Minister said it should be possible to reopen a case where there had been interference with a jury. He would go one stage further than the reforms the Hogan committee had examined. While he had a strong belief in jury trial, proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, he thought that would not be prejudiced if at the beginning of every jury trial the nature and substance of the defence case had to be outlined to the jury at first instance.