Ryan considers expert juries for financial trials

COMMUNICATIONS Minister Eamon Ryan has said proposals for complex financial crime trials to be heard before a panel of judges or expert juries should not be ruled out.

He was reacting to comments by the Director of Public Prosecutions James Hamilton, who said “exceptional measures” may be required for certain financial crime trials because of their complexity.

Mr Hamilton said it was worth considering whether such trials should be heard before a panel of judges or juries of qualified experts.

Responding to his comments, Mr Ryan said: “I understand that the UK went down such a route of trying to have specialist jurors and it was ruled against in their House of Lords. That does not mean we can’t do it here. It would probably require a constitutional amendment. But I don’t think we should rule anything out.

“I think it is hugely important for our judicial system that we are seen now to treat white-collar crime in the same way we treat a young 17-year-old who is robbing a shop or doing other sort of similar crime. We cannot have one law for the rich and one for the poor. We do need to have the strong and necessary tools to tackle it.”

Meanwhile, Mr Hamilton said it was also time to revisit the issue of dedicated whistle-blower’s legislation.

The Government decided several years ago not to proceed with general legislation to protect whistle-blowers, people who lift the lid on corrupt or illegal practices within their place of employment. At the time, the Government said that “significant legal and drafting issues” had arisen in the attempted drafting of a single, all-encompassing bill.

Instead, it examined the need for provisions on a sector-by-sector basis, establishing a whistle-blowing system for gardaí, for example. But it decided against introducing whistle-blowing legislation in the financial sector after an expert review group warned that such a move could affect Ireland’s reputation as a lightly-regulated economy.

Mr Hamilton said there was now a case for looking again at the issue of whistle-blowing legislation.

“Essentially a decision was made not to have general whistle-blower legislation back in 2007. The main reason behind it seems to have been that whistle-blower legislation might cut across our system of light regulation... I think if one goes and looks back at that, I think there is a case for looking again at that,” he said. “Quite simply, if you don’t have strong whistle-blower legislation, you probably have no case because you have no witness and no evidence. So that’s why whistle-blower legislation is important.”