The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

V I E W P 0 I N T

MARCH 1996

Seven Day Detention is Not the Answer to Drugs Menace

The Law Society Council, prompted by its Criminal Law Committee, has rightly expressed deep disquiet about

dealers themselves.

It has been suggested in relation to the current Bill that the requirement to bring a detained person before a judge will prevent abuses during interrogation. It might prevent physical abuse but it is no safeguard against the psychological pressure exerted by prolonged detention and interrogation, especially upon the weak and vulnerable such as drug abusers.

Detention without charge is a grave infringement of personal liberty because: • Imprisonment without trial reverses the fundamental freedom of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The detained person loses his/her liberty without any evidence being proffered and then proved in Court. • Detention for the purposes of interrogation has been abused in the past and remains open to abuse at any time. One need not look as far afield as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four cases in the United Kingdom as evidence of this. • Convictions secured on the basis of interrogation are notoriously suspect, as the confession is often the only evidence against the accused. In recognition of the validity of these points, the Government, when passing into law the Criminal Justice Act 1984, which introduced twelve hour detention without charge, guaranteed that a Commission to investigate the entire matter would be set up. The

the in-road into civil liberties represented by the Minister for

Justice's proposal to give the Gardai power to detain people for up to seven days without charge. The proposed new Garda power is contained in the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill 1996 which is currently before the Oireachtas. There is nothing of the ivory-tower about opposition to this measure. Solicitors who work in the criminal law area know from direct experience precisely how illegal drugs are destroying lives and menacing society. Such solicitors understand perfectly well the legal and practical difficulties of securing convictions against drug traffickers. Solicitors will support any reasonable measures taken by the Government to help put behind bars the drug godfathers whose evil activities lead indirectly to the property thefts and muggings, or worse, whereby addicts gain money to feed their habit. However, the proposed new powers of detention for up to seven days, to allow interrogation, create a risk to the civil liberties of all citizens and should not be introduced. The Government's objective is right but the approach to achieving it is wrong. The introduction of seven days detention without charge represents a serious in-road into recognised constitutional and civil liberties. The Minister has advanced no evidence to justify such a step. Solicitors believe, Irom practical experience, that such powers would be generally used against vulnerable drug addicts who have become the tools of major drug dealers rather than against the drug

A risk to the civil liberties of all citizens

The Law Society is also very concerned at the proposal to involve the judiciary in extending detention for questioning. This is quite different from deciding on whether bail should be refused to persons who have been charged with an offence. The detainee will not have been charged, yet a judge will be required to decide on his/her liberty. Moreover, judges will have no independent evidence before them and will be forced to rely on the evidence of the Gardai. This could Whilst the Law Society contends that the legislation itself should not be introduced on grounds of principle, it is additionally concerned to note that no effort whatever has been made to build adequate safeguards into this Bill. In particular the following concerns have not been addressed: • It is a right under the European Convention and a constitutional right that a detained person should have access to a solicitor. To date the Government has refused to introduce a scheme of legal aid for advice to persons in detention who cannot afford a solicitor. Its failure (Continued on page 64) undermine confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

Commission under Judge Frank Martin duly met and reported in March, 1990.

In the six intervening years, the recommendations of the Martin

Report, particularly that requiring that the interrogation of detained persons should be recorded audio-visually, have not been put into effect. Until such time as the Government honours its commitment to introduce the recommendations of the Martin Report for the present system of twelve hour detention, the public should not be invited to consider an extension to seven days.

53