English: - of a non-partisan nature. It may be Gareth Bennett today, it may be anybody else tomorrow. Therefore, the procedure that we set up has to be fair and reliable and to be applied equally. Yes, by all means let us set up a process of appeals from a decision of the commissioner, but let us not do it in an individual case, where it might easily be said that this is a case of victimisation, against a specific individual, because he is not popular in the Assembly. That would seem to me to be the correct way in which to proceed. Organisations like Liberty have spoken up for the double jeopardy rule to be maintained in the past, and many organisations that should be revered by Members of Plaid Cymru or the Labour Party have explained publicly, and in documents, how abhorrent it is that individuals should be subjected to a retrial, unless there were compelling new evidence, which is allowed for in the European convention on human rights as well. In this particular instance, there is nothing new whatsoever, as I understand it, in these complaints. Now, Mr Bain, I'm sure, is a totally acceptable choice for such a position; I've nothing against him whatsoever. If he comes to a different conclusion from Sir Roderick Evans on this matter, where does that leave Sir Roderick Evans's credibility? Whose decision are we to accept as preferable and why? Are we then to have a third commissioner appointed, in order to resolve the impasse between a difference of opinion between the existing two? And how many times does this have to go on? Should we have a people's vote on this matter, ultimately? This seems to me a matter of extreme importance to not just the liberty of the individual, but also to justice, and justice should matter to all of us, even though it may not be apparent to some who have noisily been trying to intervene in my speech today.
Welsh: - o natur amhleidiol. Efallai mai Gareth Bennett yw hi heddiw, gallai fod yn unrhyw un arall yfory. Felly, mae'n rhaid i'r weithdrefn a sefydlwyd gennym fod yn deg ac yn ddibynadwy ac mae'n rhaid ei chymhwyso'n gyfartal. Gadewch inni sefydlu proses apeliadau o benderfyniad y comisiynydd ar bob cyfrif, ond gadewch inni beidio â gwneud hynny mewn achos unigol lle gellid dweud yn hawdd bod hyn yn achos o erledigaeth, yn erbyn unigolyn penodol, gan nad yw'n boblogaidd yn y Cynulliad. Ymddengys i mi mai dyna fyddai'r ffordd gywir i fwrw ymlaen. Mae sefydliadau megis Liberty wedi lleisio eu barn gan ddweud y dylid cynnal y rheol erlyniad dwbl yn y gorffennol, ac mae llawer o sefydliadau y dylai fod yn fawr eu parch gan Aelodau Plaid Cymru neu'r Blaid Lafur wedi egluro'n gyhoeddus, ac mewn dogfennau, pa mor wrthun yw hi y dylai unigolion orfod dioddef aildreial, oni bai fod tystiolaeth newydd anorfod, y mae'r confensiwn Ewropeaidd ar hawliau dynol hefyd yn caniatáu ar ei gyfer. Yn yr achos penodol hwn, nid oes dim byd newydd o gwbl, fel y deallaf, yn y cwynion hyn. Nawr, mae Mr Bain, rwy'n siŵr, yn ddewis hollol dderbyniol ar gyfer swyddogaeth o'r fath; nid oes gennyf ddim yn ei erbyn o gwbl. Os daw ef i gasgliad sy'n wahanol i Syr Roderick Evans ar y mater hwn, ble mae hynny'n gadael hygrededd Syr Roderick Evans? Penderfyniad pwy y dylem ei dderbyn fel y gorau, a pham? A ddylid penodi trydydd comisiynydd, felly, er mwyn datrys y gwahaniaeth barn rhwng y ddau bresennol? A sawl gwaith sy'n rhaid i hyn ddigwydd? A ddylai'r bobl bleidleisio ar y mater hwn, yn y pen draw? Ymddengys hyn fel bod yn fater o bwys eithriadol i mi, nid oherwydd rhyddid unigolyn yn unig, ond oherwydd cyfiawnder hefyd, a dylai cyfiawnder fod yn bwysig i bob un ohonom, er efallai nad yw hynny'n amlwg i rai sydd wedi ceisio ymyrryd yn swnllyd â'm haraith heddiw.