asked the Minister for Justice if he will consider amending our criminal justice legislation so that in a case where an accused person pleads guilty to murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, the court shall be required to hear psychiatric evidence as to the mental state of the accused.

, Limerick East): Let me say at the outset that, while I readily accept that this question is entirely legitimate, it is necessary for me to be particularly careful about anything I might say in present circumstances where it seems inescapable that the question and my answer will be linked in the public mind with a very recent case that in certain major respects is still sub judice.

My attitude is that, as a matter of principle, I am prepared to consider any proposal that is not clearly misconceived but, as far as the particular proposal in the question is concerned, the position is that the rights and interests of a person charged with murder are already protected by elaborate safeguards and I have no reason to believe that they are in any way insufficient. If, however, the Deputy wants to make a case that those safeguards, taken together, are insufficient, I suggest that he might send me a written statement of the arguments and I will have the matter further examined. It is clear that, especially in the situation that exists at the moment relating to a particular case, I could not comment across the floor of the House at Question Time.

The question is simply asking the Minister if he will consider an amendment to the criminal justice legislation to ensure that in cases, as I say in the question, where an accused person pleads guilty to murder — I understand that there have been at least three such cases in the last two or three years — which carries the mandatory life sentence, legislation will be there to ensure that the court would be required to hear psychiatric evidence. Is it not a fact that in a recent case the defence attempted to introduce psychiatric evidence and it was not done?

To clarify the position, the question is quite in order and Deputy Mac Giolla's supplementary is practically 100 per cent in order as long as we keep away from the recent cases he spoke about. The necessity for that is that the case in which there are common facts with the case that has been disposed of stands adjourned until July and to that extent is obviously sub judice.

There is something also about legislation. On a point of order, is there not a rule that it is not in order to suggest legislation during Question Time? I am relying on my memory.

I think it is in order.

(Limerick East): Despite the assertion of the Deputy and his assurance that he does not link this question with any particular case, it is quite clear to me that my answer will be linked with a particular case in the public mind. Certain major respects in that case are sub judice. I am not prepared to comment further.

I do not think the question has been answered. I am asking the Minister for Justice if he considers, taking into account various cases over the past ten years, that amending legislation would be required in such cases to ensure that the court would hear psychiatric evidence. I understand that at present it is a matter for the judge in the case who is allowed latitude. Does the Minister consider in the interest of justice and the public seeing that justice is done, that amending legislation would be required to our criminal justice code?

(Limerick East): The Deputy may not have heard the main part of my answer. I said that the position is that the rights and interests of a person charged with murder are already protected by elaborate safeguards and I have no reason to believe that they are in any way insufficient. If, however, the Deputy wants to make a case that those safeguards, taken together, are insufficient. I suggest that he might send me a written statement of the arguments and I will have the matter further examined.