Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for this amendment. As he rightly said, this is an important area and one that has come to the fore even more in the past year or two. It is certainly something students, in particular, but younger people more generally have raised with me. That is why, last year, we had the awareness-raising campaign, working with the Garda and the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, trying to highlight what people need to look out for and how to tell if their drink is spiked but, more importantly, that they need to go the Garda if this happens. It appears that, for various reasons, many people do not necessarily do so.

As for this amendment, I stress that section 12 of the 1997 Act provides for a general poisoning offence. That would apply where anybody intentionally or recklessly administers a substance which is capable of interfering substantially with the other person's bodily functions. What it does not require is proof that the person intended to do anything afterwards or that anything happened afterwards. The offence does carry a penalty of up to three years' imprisonment and can certainly be used. It is what is used against those who spike a drink. Where a rape or a sexual assault has been enabled by the administering of the drug, that can, of course, be charged independently and separate penalties can apply. Obviously, that is a much more severe penalty.

This amendment seems very much aligned with how this offence was introduced in the UK. My understanding is that the UK does not have an equivalent of the poisoning offence we have here. The offence the UK has requires the person to prove that he or she intended to do more after the other person was spiked and that there was intended to be an assault or a rape or some form of sexual assault. What we have does not require that. I would also suggest that, because we are increasing the penalty for assault causing harm, there are a number of ways in which a number of different charges can be brought to cover not only the spiking itself but also the act afterwards, whether there has or has not been harm. Where I acknowledge there is a differentiation is potentially the sentence.

What we have now, three years, is substantially less than where we are going with the offence of assault causing harm, which is up to ten years. As I believe this is covered in the law we have, unlike the case in the UK, I suggest looking at the penalty we have and how we can ensure there are absolutely no gaps. It is the case in many instances that we could apply the offence of assault causing harm in cases where there is a rape or sexual assault afterwards. This would be applied separately to the spiking offence itself. We must, of course, ensure that there is no possibility of a lesser sentence where some particular type of case falls through the gaps. I refer to looking at the sentence itself and exploring where it could be extended. Looking at this, however, and because we have the offence here, to me it is not as difficult to prove as what is being proposed by the Deputy. What we have is good, but I acknowledge that the sentences may be lower in that regard and this may be something we could explore further.