John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, I thank all those Members, from all sides of the House, who made valuable and quite excellent contributions. I thank the Minister of State for her kind words earlier this evening and I thank my legal team, who helped me to put together the Bill. In addition, I thank members of the Garda Síochána, who were quite excellent in helping me with the Bill, as well as the many groups and in particular, the Support After Crime Services in Cork, Limerick, Clare, Tipperary and Waterford, whose founding member, Ms Sally Hanlon, was quite helpful to me. I also thank many members of victim support groups nationwide.

I am aware that many Deputies from all sides of the House would like to be able to return to their constituencies and tell their constituents they are supporting the Bill. This is because any Deputy who works on the ground knows full well the devastating impact that burglaries have on communities throughout the country. They also know how completely powerless victims can be. I reiterate the point I made last night, which is that a burglary takes place every 19 minutes, according to statistics from the Central Statistics Office. Consequently, by the time this debate concludes this evening, another four or five homes will have been ransacked. Another four or five families will return home or will wake up to scenes of devastation, their security will have been shattered and treasured items will be gone forever. I ask Members to think about such families and not the burglars when they vote on this Bill. This is because the Bill primarily is about victims and not the convicted.

Some Members of my legal team were listening to the Minister's response last night and were quite taken aback with some of the information in that response. I wish to go through some points that were made. First, he spoke about the rights of the accused but this Bill does not mention the rights of the accused. If one is accused, one has not been convicted. This Bill deals specifically with those who have been convicted of the offence. One then must determine whether one should deal with the rights of the victims or the convicted. All those accused have rights and one is not guilty because one is accused. I was shocked, as was my legal team, to hear the Minister mention the rights of the accused last night.

The Minister also referred to section 6 of the 1993 Act. During the debate, much was made by the Minister and some Government Deputies of the compensation clause built into section 6 of the 1993 Act. What was not mentioned by the Minister - again I was taken aback by this - is that section 6 always is at the discretion of the judge. Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 provides that where a defendant is convicted of an offence, the court may make an order requiring him or her to pay compensation in respect of personal injury or loss suffered by the victims as a result of the offence. However, the decision on whether a compensation order is made currently is at the discretion of the court. The Minister gave out wrong information here last night, which gave the implication that it already was in being that compensation was a prerequisite for people who went to court but this is not the case.

The Minister spoke about victims' consent and the point was made that this Bill does not take into account a victim's consent. It was suggested that an offer of reparation could be perceived as a means by which a convicted burglar could buy his or her way out of the sentence. This is a ridiculous suggestion. The Bill does not propose the payment of compensation as an alternative to a custodial sentence. Under the terms of the Bill, sentencing would take place irrespective of whether reparation was made voluntarily. I also was deeply shocked by Deputy Ferris when she brought up the horrendous crime of rape. This Bill specifically pertains to burglaries and invasion of the home. I made it quite clear in this Bill that it would be incumbent upon a judge, irrespective of the bestowal of a custodial sentence or a community sentence, that reparation would be paid to the victim. Consequently, it has nothing to do with this. I made a point of not commenting on minimum or maximum sentencing or whatever. During the abortion debate, I had rape victims as guests in the Gallery and they know my views on rape and on how women are treated and violated and on how victims are treated. I wished to be quite clear in that regard and while I like Deputy Ferris, perhaps she had not read part of the Bill.

The rights of the accused also were mentioned at length - far more than the rights of the victim - to not have his or her home violated, from what I could make out. What is clear in the Bill is that the payment of reparation applies to those convicted of a burglary. I must make this point quite clear. The rights of the accused are clear in Irish law and this Bill in no way infringes on due process and a fair trial. The suggestion was made that the Bill could infringe on the rights of juveniles or those suffering from mental health issues. Again, my legal team were shocked to hear the Minister speak about this last night. Everyone is aware that those considered incompetent under the law will not be brought to trial and all of this is taken into consideration already in Irish law. This Bill is addressing cases in which adults of sound mental health are convicted in an Irish court of law. Again, my legal team, when going through the Bill this morning with me, recognised that the Minister mentioned the rights of children. This is a Bill directed at adult defendants, that is, adults who are convicted. Moreover, an adult is someone who is 18 years of age or more, while a child under Irish law is someone who is under 18 years of age.

Someone mentioned the assessment from the Garda. As matters stand, if one's home is broken into and money or precious items or jewellery are taken from one's home, one's first port of call is the Garda to give a report as to what has been taken and one gives such an assessment to the Garda. When one contacts an insurance company, its representatives ask for that. They ask whether one has gone to the Garda, what has been taken and whether one can give an assessment, has receipts and so on. The gardaí would have been the first people to whom one would have gone. Moreover, those who spoke up about the assessment from the Garda appear to be forgetting that if someone is convicted, it will have been because the Garda found the items or will have induced that person to make a statement as to what he or she had taken from the house and the damage he or she had done. I see no problem with a garda appearing before to the court to state he or she accepts that this particular house of such a person was broken into and this is what was taken or stolen.

The meeting with victims was mentioned. While I have no problem with a perpetrator meeting the victim under restorative justice, many victims do not want this to happen - one can speak to all victims' groups in this regard. In the first instance, they are too shocked and upset and they are afraid. In the context of restorative justice, had it been amended and included within the Bill, I would not exclude it. However, I wished to make clear that many victims find that as of yet, they are not quite up to meeting someone who has broken into their house, damaged their property or assaulted them.

The Government's plans to introduce new restorative justice measures also were appraised. However, what was not specified is that the Government proposes to give victims of crime the right to accept reparation payment from the offender in question. Members should bear in mind that the right to feel safe and secure in one's own home already has been ripped from the victim and the Government's response is to create a framework within Irish criminal law whereby if the person convicted of breaking into one's home, who possibly may have 100 other convictions under his or her belt, feels sufficiently remorseful to offer compensation, then the victim will have the right to accept such payment. I do not call that justice for the victim. Do Members honestly consider that to be an appropriate response to the rights of the victim? I would be interested to meet the offender, who may have been availing of free legal aid for many years, who will voluntarily make such reparation.

This is the difficulty for victims' groups with whom one speaks. I was quite clear in putting this Bill together and I met approximately 20 families whose homes had been broken into and I spoke to victims' groups throughout the country.

The basic aim of the reparation proposal from the Minister for Justice and Equality is to reduce the overall number of custodial sentences for crimes at District Court level. No thought has been given to the victim. The reparation process, to which the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, alluded, would certainly not be considered a fair and balanced one. Restorative justice is about the idea that because crime hurts, justice must heal. The victim of the home burglary deserves justice in the same way as any other victim and if that justice has to come via deductions from the criminal's means of living, whether his or her wages, pension or social welfare payment, then so be it.

If the Bill had gone to Committee Stage, I would have been prepared to accept amendments. I am deeply disappointed the Government has not agreed to that. As I said, I put a huge effort into this Bill, as did all groups from the legal team to the Garda to victims' rights groups. It is disappointing to think it will not be allowed to progress to Committee Stage.

See this speech in context