The rules governing the recording of Garda interviews of suspects should be changed, according to the Minister for Justice. He said he would be discussing this and other matters with the judiciary in the coming weeks.
At a Garda graduation ceremony in Templemore yesterday, Michael McDowell said that judges' rules requiring statements to be recorded in writing and signed belonged in the 19th century. They were not applicable now, he said.
"What's the point of having a video camera running and then having a garda struggling to take down a quick-fire interview and then say that the only authentic version, or the most authentic version, of the interview is what the garda managed to get down rather than what the camera showed happening?" he asked.
He said this could be changed either through the judges changing the rules or through legislation. "I have to consider which is the better approach."
Asked when he would move on this, he said it was an urgent priority to ensure that the new powers would be in the Criminal Justice Bill when it went before the Dáil and Seanad before the summer.
He also said that the judiciary could assist in moving cases on, by isolating what the issues are in a case and shortening cases, so that the prosecution and the accused and their respective lawyers could concentrate on the issues. He said that instead of having to prove everything, only contested evidence should have to be put through a process of minute examination.
Mr McDowell said that having the legislature "micro-manage" how court cases were run would be an invasion of the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. He would be discussing case-management of criminal cases and judges' rules regarding evidence with the judiciary in the coming weeks.
He said many of the desired changes could be achieved by simple case management. Referring to the commission of crimes by people released on bail, Mr McDowell said everyone in the criminal justice system should realise the Constitution was the basic law decided by the people.
"The people decided that where there was a process which showed, on credible evidence, that a person would avail of their liberty to commit further serious crime, that they could be deprived of their liberty pending trial.