A challenge for criminal justice

The collapse of the trial of Liam Keane for murder, coming hard on the heels of the move from Limerick to Dublin of another murder…

The collapse of the trial of Liam Keane for murder, coming hard on the heels of the move from Limerick to Dublin of another murder trial where the victim was a member of the Keane family because of difficulties in swearing in a jury, undermines the credibility of our criminal justice system.

While these events took place in a context where successful trials have been prosecuted in Limerick, including in the Central Criminal Court which has been sitting there since July, the impression is being created that there exists in the city a culture that appears to be able to avoid justice. Right-thinking people will see this in their communities as "getting away with it" and this development will further damage respect and belief in the criminal justice system if allowed to go unchecked.

Rights come with responsibilities. As the Minister for Justice embarks on an examination of the adequacy of legislative provision, resource allocation and administrative practice to see what, if any, changes are required, and this is to be welcomed, he must consider redrawing the balance of rights, and presumptions, between accused and society.

There will inevitably be calls for more gardaí, for more use of the Special Criminal Court and for other drastic measures. But there are no quick-fix solutions to the problems revealed by these recent Limerick cases, any more than there are to the recent spate of killings in Dublin, for which few arrests have been made.

READ MORE

The central problem in yesterday's case was that the witnesses were not willing to stand over statements they made to the gardaí. This turn of events seemed to come as a surprise to the prosecution, and questions must be asked about what contact was maintained with these witnesses by gardaí after they gave their original statements. Calls for the case to be heard in the Special Criminal Court are misguided, as there is no reason to believe that the witnesses would have been any more willing to give evidence there. The central problem in the previous case was the difficulty in getting a jury, with unprecedented numbers of potential jurors offering reasons for being unable to commit. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that an atmosphere of intimidation prevails when such cases are involved.

In a democracy no-one can be forced to give evidence in a criminal trial. Instead the criminal justice system depends on the goodwill of citizens, who willingly help in bringing wrong-doers to justice and in participating in juries. All necessary support and protection must be given to witnesses who feel under any kind of threat.

But there is a more fundamental issue at stake. A relatively small group of people defies society, having no attachment to any of its norms or rules, but still insisting on their "rights". For the most part, society appears to be content, even powerless, to adapt to them in any meaningful way, until there is a crisis like yesterday. Accounting for crime, and the causes of crime, is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice.