Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 60 adds to the list of factors that the court must take into account in determining disclosure by including the likelihood that disclosure or requiring disclosure of a record will cause harm to the complainant, including the extent and the nature of that harm. I think that will be welcomed. The amendment that is being proposed by Deputies Jim O'Callaghan and Jonathan O'Brien provides similarly. Amendment No. 59 is consequential to amendment No. 60. Amendment No. 62 substitutes subsection 10, now number 9, in the list of amendments. Some of the other amendments are consequential amendments to the changes that are being made. In particular, amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 66 are consequential amendments to the deletion of section 38(4) by amendment No. 38. Amendment No. 75 adds to the list of conditions which a court may include in an order made for disclosure under subsection 10. Currently subsection 12 prevents a record disclosed under the section from being used in other proceedings. The aim of the provision is to prevent an accused from using a record disclosed to him or her in any other proceedings. However, as currently drafted, it may have the unintended effect of preventing the complainant or a third party to whom the record relates from using the record, for example in a civil trial. It is proposed to address the risk by deleting subsection 12 and inserting a similar restriction into the conditions which a court may impose when ordering the disclosure of the records. This is the approach that has been taken by the Law Reform Commission in its proposals and it would allow the court to be more particular in specifying the limits on the further use of the record in question. I think it does address the various concerns of those who tabled these amendments.

I appreciate the point that Deputy O'Callaghan is seeking to address in amendment No. 76. I am aware that this is a point that had been raised in a number of submissions, however, any breach of a court's order would already be subject to rules of contempt and criminal offence is not required. On a technical point on Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment, while creating a criminal offence, it does not provide for a penalty for that offence.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien's amendment No. 77 is in the wrong place in the Bill.