Sir, - Frequent reference has been made recently to the practice of so-called plea bargaining and its bearing on the Sheedy case.
The practice has clear advantages in concluding a criminal process and this has been well described in the US Supreme Court judgment in Blackledge v Allison, 1977: "Properly administered, plea bargains can benefit all concerned. The defendant avoids extended pre-trial anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realising whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The public is protected from risks posed by those charged with criminal offences who are at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings".
The US Supreme Court has found the practice to be legitimate and constitutional, and to be encouraged. It occurs there on a formal basis with the full knowledge and consent of the defendant.
The difficulty in this jurisdiction is that when plea bargaining does occur, it is surrounded by a veil of secrecy which leaves the way open to possible abuse or at best misunderstanding. Officially, the practice simply does not take place at all. This is unfortunate because there are distinct advantages in plea bargaining for both defendant and victim and for the administration of justice.
What is required here is either to formalise plea bargaining or to ban it.
In particular, the needs of the victim must be adequately addressed, so as to ensure fairness in the outcome of the case and also to reassure the public that justice is always administered openly. - Yours, etc., Ann Fitzgerald,
(Solicitor), Shandon Street, Cork.