Tánaiste and Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has said his plans to review the way criminal trials are run will make Ireland a safer place for citizens but a less safe place for gangland bosses.
Mr McDowell said the plan to review fundamental legal protections, such as the right of silence, enjoyed the support of the Taoiseach, who had been in contact with him about the matter.
Speaking on RTÉ radio, he defended the proposal yesterday, saying the scales of justice may have tilted too far in favour of the accused.
He said the issue of whether the correct balance was being struck between the rights of the accused and the prosecution was first raised at a conference organised by the Director of Public Prosecution.
In England the law governing criminal trials had been changed so that a retrial could be ordered in cases of "double jeopardy" or where a jury had been tampered with.
He said after the Omagh bombing, emergency legislation had been changed so that inferences could be drawn from a person's failure to reply to questions. This fact alone would not be sufficient to secure a conviction but could be used as corroboration of other evidence.
The legislation had been upheld at the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr McDowell said he supported legal principles such as trial by jury, adversarial justice and judges acting as impartial arbiters rather than inquisitors. However, this did not mean that trials were conducted in the same way as they were several hundred years ago, or when the Constitution was drafted in 1937. In an increasingly sophisticated world, interviews were recorded, legal aid was available for the accused and the prosecution had a duty of total disclosure.
On the other side, a person could not be asked basic questions regarding their credibility.
A person accused of a bank robbery could not be asked about previous bank robberies in which he/she was involved. Yet the defence was entitled to launch "ferocious attacks" on prosecution witnesses.
Green Party justice spokesman Ciaran Cuffe said any changes should be considered carefully. The right of an accused to remain silent was a fundamental tenet of law going back to the foundation of the State. The problem could be dealt with in other ways, such as better detective work.
