Dr. Amanda Haynes:

The Senator has hit the nail on the head. In effect, when we talk about the dual model, we are talking about being able to address hate crime through two different means. One is the creation of these new offences. If somebody is convicted of one of these new offences, that person will have the label of "hate crime offender" on his or her criminal record. That will appear when the person is vetted by the Garda. We know from research we did with Professor Ross MacMillan that this will impact, additional to a criminal record, upon the way that person is viewed by the rest of society, including as a neighbour and a potential employee.

The other method we have of dealing with hate crimes through this Bill, and we commend the fact that it includes this dual model, which is appropriate, is the aggravated sentencing measure that will lead to enhanced penalties. If somebody is convicted of an assault, for example, that person is convicted of an assault. It is not a hate-aggravated assault, but there is an enhanced penalty because of the hate element that is associated with the crime.

In both cases, the offender will receive an enhanced penalty and we are marking out that hate element as unacceptable to us as a society. Where we are talking about the offences, the person will also get the label of hate crime offender, which will be on his or her record and will have significant impacts upon his or her life chances. We are asking committee members to think about whether they want the same threshold in place in both cases - when somebody receives an enhanced penalty and when somebody receives an enhanced penalty and the label "hate crime offender". Do they want to use the same threshold? Does the committee want it to be the same for persons who commit a crime against somebody because they have decided to act out of their prejudice against that person on the basis of his or her characteristics, as for persons who commit a crime, for example, for financial motivation, and in the course of committing that crime used an admittedly harmful slur? Does the committee want those persons in those two cases to be treated in the same way?

The Bill as it has been created offers the possibility of treating those individuals differently. It could be that we only consider the case of a person where we can prove the crime was wholly or partially motivated - it does not have to be wholly motivated and there can also be financial motivation - and it is also in evidence, that he or she decided, at least in part, to commit that crime because that person decided to act out his or her prejudice against an individual due to that individual's characteristics. It would then acquire the label of "hate crime offender" as well as the additional penalty.

Do we also want that to be the case for the person who committed the crime for no reason other than a financial motivation, but in the course of committing it used a tool that is available to us because we live in a society that is racist, homophobic, transphobic and ableist, and deployed that tool against an individual but did not commit the crime for that reason? It seems to me the Senator has a very clear appreciation of those differences. I thank the committee for the opportunity to address that issue.