Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The amendments I have tabled are very similar. They relate to sections 184 to 186, inclusive, and are about a reasonable person. My first concern is with regard to what is reasonable person. What is the definition of a "reasonable person"? I may think the Minister of State is a reasonable person and he may not think I am a reasonable person. Who knows? This type of language seems very arbitrary. Will this not lead to endless involvement of the courts with regard to definitions? Is this not a weakness?

More importantly, I am very concerned that this being in the legislation allows ignorance of legal responsibilities as a defence against prosecution. Outside of the Bill we are all aware of legislation and court cases where it has been emphasised time and again that a defence of not knowing something was breaking the law is not accepted, and rightly so. We could not operate as a society if ignorance of the law or ignorance of legal responsibilities were a defence. How would things operate or work? This seems to write in ignorance of legal responsibilities as a defence against prosecution. I am very concerned as to how this will end up working. Will it not just nullify a lot of the protection that is otherwise in the Bill?

We have to consider bad faith actors. Good faith actors will not try to exercise this. What about bad faith actors who may well have been aware of their responsibilities but will now be able to say they did not know and nobody told them? A bad faith actor will be protected by this. I am more than willing to withdraw the amendment but if the Minister of State gives an undertaking to at least look at this wording between now and Report Stage it would be very helpful.