Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for coming in. It is an incredibly traumatic discussion for many people. It is an interesting question but a highly complicated area. We may be in danger of overcomplicating it. While these issues are incredibly emotional and personal to people and I am very sorry for the loss of the witnesses and the tragic circumstances, we cannot respond emotionally to these things. We have a duty as legislators to put in place the best legislation. It cannot be based on individual cases.

I have listened to all the contributions and my head is melting with much of the detail. In some ways we may have overcomplicated the matter. There seems to be a crossover. Everyone agrees that no one should benefit from the proceeds of a crime. Any right-thinking person would think that. There is a major difference, however, between benefiting from a crime and the criminal being stripped of everything she owns. If a person has a legal right to property, whether through a joint arrangement or whatever, that property still belongs to that person. It is one thing if we are saying that as a penalty for the crime committed, the judge should look at everything and decide that because a person committed a crime, he should be stripped of everything he owns and should have no ownership rights, as per the old system, but I do not think we are suggesting that. If we are saying there should be punishment for the crime provided that crime is ascertained, then I think that is in place. The complication is that we are talking about the most horrific circumstances, in some ways, whereby people had a relationship or connection and joint ownership, but one person severed that link through a violent death. We know when relationships sever it can be messy and highly cumbersome anyway. If a person was killed in an accident, the survivors could be left with a mess if they did not deal with their separation properly and so on. I am not clarifying the matter but the background is messy as far as I am concerned.

I was struck by Professor Mee's point that we do not have a particularly weird law here. Already, cases have arisen where the 50% rule has been applied. I am unsure where the benefit of Deputy O’Callaghan's Bill arises. I think it overcomplicates the situation. The point about attempted murder is relevant in that it is clear no succession arises. We are only dealing with succession issues. In cases of manslaughter, murder and other heinous crimes, the Bill would give a great deal of latitude to the courts. Do we need it at all? That is my question.

Reference was made to how this was motivated by the Cawley case. The Cawley case was a manslaughter case. The jury was asked at the time and the judge directed that it would have to give manslaughter if intent was not proven. Intent was not proven in that case. Another case is in the media at the moment. There was a high-profile case of a woman, Sally Challen, in Britain. She was convicted of the murder of her husband following an appalling life of abuse involving battered wife syndrome and so on. Let us suppose she were convicted of manslaughter. Would it be right in those circumstances that she should be stripped of the family home? In that situation her children are 100% behind her. What if there were other circumstances where one child sided with the mother and another sided with the father? How would that pan out when the mother got out of prison? Such a case could be a manslaughter case. Under this legislation, is such a person, whom I would consider to be a victim, to be robbed of her home and everything? That is something that I would like people to comment on.

I have some technical questions following my next point. If the courts already tend to implement the 50:50 arrangement, what is the point of the legislation? Is the purpose of this legislation to go further and strip the offender of more? What is this about? I do not really see benefit in this legislation at all. I clearly understand why the victims of crime yearn for the benefit but I do not see them getting any benefit from this legislation. I am unsure whether we need it given that there is already provision for prevention of someone benefiting from the proceeds of a crime. I do not really get it.