Ms Caroline Counihan:

I thank the committee for inviting a representative from the Rape Crisis Ireland Network to speak here today. We are very grateful for the opportunity. We have two major areas of concern when it comes to sex offenders. We must do all we can, even if it amounts to little, to help ensure that the risk from sex offenders in the community is reduced as far as possible and that those responsible for their monitoring, support and supervision have the range of powers necessary to enable them to do their job. The second concern is perhaps more nebulous, but it is very important. We are concerned to do as much as possible to ensure that victims of convicted sex offenders do not feel vulnerable or powerless once the person responsible for the offence committed against them is released into the community. We have to ensure that those victims know that things are being done. Perhaps in certain cases more can be done.

We very much welcome these two pieces of legislation. The general scheme seems to be very comprehensive. I will go through a few of the heads to highlight some of our recommendations and to provide the rationale for them. On head No. 5, notification requirements, we welcome the broadening of powers. Over the years we have heard much from various members of An Garda Síochána about the vagueness of the current Act on the exact detail of how reporting should take place and what happens in special situations, for example, where a person is homeless, disabled or detained outside the jurisdiction.

Over the years we have heard much from members of An Garda Síochána about the vagueness of the Act with regard to the exact detail of how reporting should take place and what happens in special situations where somebody is homeless, disabled or detained outside the jurisdiction. There is much clarity, which we welcome. The committee might consider including an extra requirement of notification so a sex offender would have to provide any address at which he regularly resides and stays as well as his main home address when he goes to notify a particular member of An Garda Síochána.

We have also singled out head 9. I echo what the representatives of the Probation Service said. It is good that the process of risk assessment and risk management has been finally put on a statutory basis. It is very important there is effective liaison with local NGOs that support victims, not just rape crisis centres but others. Why is that important? It is important to our clients. It is important they are well informed and informed by the responsible officials about what is being done to supervise and monitor sex offenders in the community. It is also important that, heaven forfend, they have concerns in the future about the behaviour of a particular individual they know what to do with those concerns. The general principle is to try to counter the culture of fear, the feeling that one is helpless and the idea that while it is not right for people to take the law into their own hands, it is understood why they did it. We have to counter that in the interests of good risk management. With regard to the way it is drafted, with great respect to the drafters, the risk management role, which is important and which goes on for a long time, should be stressed in the language a bit more. Perhaps they should be called risk assessment and management teams. We also suggest there is a mechanism for receiving information from third parties. Sometimes people come into possession of information and think it is really scary and are not sure what to do with it. It would be great if there was a place they could go with it.

With regard to head 10, disclosure of information, a number of brakes are put on the process of disclosure where there is a risk of vigilante activity as a result of the disclosure. Another thing that should be included on the list - I am sure it is at the forefront of the minds of the gardaí in question but it is no harm to include it - is a brake on disclosure where there is a risk to a present or potential future investigation or prosecution. It would be devastating for survivors if a possible prosecution were jeopardised by misuse of information which had been disclosed in this manner. Consideration should be given to a sanction for misuse of information.

I will come onto the Bill in a minute but with regard to the general scheme and head 18 on prohibition orders, it is very welcome there is a proposal to introduce orders preventing people who have been convicted of a sex offence from working with children or vulnerable persons. I have two comments about that. The first is a general one. Should these orders not be coextensive with notification requirements so that as long as a person is a sex offender he or she should be precluded absolutely from working with children or vulnerable persons? I am also concerned about the way it is drafted. As it is drafted, I am concerned about situations in which somebody is convicted of a sex offence for which the maximum penalty is not life, for example in the case of sexual assault and a maximum sentence of ten years. If a person gets a high sentence, for example eight years, because the person is a repeat offender or was found guilty of an extremely serious assault, with remission that person will be out in six years. The remaining possible term of the prohibition order cannot go beyond the overall maximum of ten years. Therefore, the person will be precluded from working with children for only four years. It is almost as if that person gets a reward for behaving worse. It cannot be the intention of the legislation. With great respect, I suggest the simplest way to fix it is just to make prohibition orders similar to notification requirements so that one is subject to them as long as one is subject to notification requirements.

I will make one final small point on the general scheme about the discharge of orders. It has come to our attention several times that people who have been the victims of sex offenders get very upset when these offenders apply, for instance, to no longer be subject to notification requirements. There are several places in the general scheme as in the current legislation where there are discharge provisions. I have no objection to people applying for discharge but I think it is right in any of these applications that somebody would get the opportunity to be heard as a victim of sexual violence. It should be in there.

We welcome Deputy O'Sullivan's Bill in principle. It is a terrific idea. I note with great interest what is happening in Northern Ireland. Surely if it happening in Northern Ireland it ought to happen here. I have a small concern. Perhaps I am wrong to have this concern but nevertheless I have it. I wonder if it should not be framed in a more tight fashion so there is a clear threshold as there is under the proposed section 26C on prohibition orders and as it is framed in the Northern Irish foreign travel orders that there should be a threshold that has to be overcome before such an order can be made. I say this being mindful of the right to travel in the Constitution. My thinking is it might be wise to insulate this provision as far as we can from attack on the grounds that it is unconstitutional or oppressive because it would be great to have it. It would be a terrific addition to the armoury that we already have. I thank the committee for its patience.