I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, subsection (1)(a), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(iii) require the accused person to enter into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and to abstain from any form of criminal activity (including the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 — 1984) for the duration of the case,".
Section 6(1)(a) states:
Where an accused person is admitted to bail on his or her entering into a recognisance, the recognisance shall, in addition to the condition requiring his or her appearance before the court at the end of the period of the remand of the accused person, be subject to the following conditions—
The first condition is that the accused shall not commit any offence and the second is that the accused shall otherwise be of good behaviour. The amendment would require the accused person to enter into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour but also to abstain from any form of criminal activity, including the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984, for the duration of the case.
Section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, states that, subject to section 3 (3) and section 4 (3) of that Act, a person shall not have a controlled drug in his possession. A person who has a controlled drug in his possession in contravention of section 3 (1) shall be guilty of an offence. The Minister may, by order, declare that section 3(1) shall not apply to a controlled drug specified in the order and, for so long as an order under that subsection is in force, the prohibition contained in subsection (1) shall not apply to a drug which is a controlled drug specified in the order.
This provision gives statutory effect to the fact that there is no constitutional right to possess and consume illegal drugs. The amendment would also give statutory effect to that position. Amendment No. 5 provides for the monitoring of accused persons to ensure compliance with the terms of their bail. At present, there is little or no incentive or direction by the courts, because of legislative voids, to ensure that drug addicts who are guilty of serious crimes undergo treatment.
Amendment No. 2 suggests that if an individual comes before the court and is granted bail, the court, if it deems it necessary, could make an order, as a condition of the person's bail, that he or she must abstain from the possession of illegal drugs. The amendment is bolstered by amendment No. 5 under which the person would be required to attend a designated location on specified days for the purpose of providing a urine sample which could be analysed in order to ascertain whether the accused was in breach of the condition specified in amendment No. 2 by consuming a controlled drug other than a drug prescribed by a registered medical practitioner as part of recognised drug treatment course.
The twin objectives are to prevent the individual consuming illegal drugs, if that is possible, while also ensuring that he or she receives treatment for his or her addiction. It would be a condition, as set out in amendment No. 6, that the court would inform the accused person of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre for drug addiction. If such a request was made by the individual, an appointment would be made for them. If a condition of a person's bail was that he or she refrained from using or possessing illegal drugs, pursuant to section 3 of the 1977 Act, there would be a large incentive for the individual to undergo treatment.
Modern criminal legislation should recognise what is happening on the streets and the reality that the vast majority of crime is committed by habitual drug addicts. Society has failed to recognise that reality. Some people believe that 80 per cent of the crime committed in Dublin is drug related. That is an extremely high percentage but if one accepts that figure, the law must reflect that problem and suggest remedies. Experience shows that the prison route alone in relation to offenders who are drug addicts is unsuccessful. Therefore, the system must be changed and in this context, as I have repeatedly said, a drug treatment detention unit is required.
Our laws do not reflect the drug-related crime problem and the amendment does little more than recognise reality. It innovatively links the solving of the crime problem, in so far as that can be achieved, to the solving of an individual's drug addiction. The amendments attempt to protect society from criminality, which is a superior obligation, while at the same time vindicating the addict's right to bodily integrity. The amendments balance the scales and their objectives can be achieved in the context of an individual being granted bail provided these conditions are accepted. Nowhere in our criminal law is there a recognition of the necessity to put treatment on a statutory footing. This has to be done because, in the final analysis, all the criminal sanctions in the world will not lessen the number of crimes committed in society, unless we lessen the number of habitual drug users. The sooner we face this fact the better.
These amendments would be a small step along the road to realising the objectives to which I referred. I am not so naive as to believe they would help in a major way to resolve the problem but I am conscious that they would help along the way and anything that does that should be seriously considered by the Government. They have not been plucked out of the air, they were included in the Fianna Fáil Criminal Law (Bail) Bill, 1995, the vast majority of which has been included in this Bill. There is no reason I can think of for their exclusion. I recommend that they be accepted.