Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 20, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(c) in subsection (4), after the word “respondent” where it secondly occurs to insert the following:

“or protecting the victim of previous crimes from harassment”,”.

The main aspect of this group of amendments is to deal with the harassment of victims for which the perpetrator was charged, convicted and served a sentence. Such perpetrators are then released back into the community. They have orders placed on them, but if such an individual harasses the victim or hangs around the vicinity of where the victim resides or works, that victim has to go through a completely separate and new legal process. It is considered a new offence, and that should not happen. When the witness is useful to the State in achieving a conviction, protection is afforded to him or her during the investigation, the pre-trial and the trial proceedings. At that stage we are talking about only an alleged offender, but once that individual changes from being an alleged offender to being a convicted offender, the protection that applies to the victim evaporates with that conviction. There is no way the victim can at present be protected from secondary and repeated victimisation, intimidation or retaliation by a convicted offender. We need to reflect clearly in the legislation the current shortcomings and to address those shortcomings by continuing that protection of the victim after the sex offender is released from prison such that he or she cannot go back and re-victimise the victim and effectively re-abuse the victim through the threat of intimidation or harassment. The law needs to be strengthened in this area. As I have said before, we do not want to see victims re-abused, which I feel is happening. The Minister is aware of a case. I am aware of a case in my constituency in which this level of intimidation is going on but it is at a level that will not secure a new conviction. It should not have to come to that. This is a continuation of abuse that has gone on previously. That should be taken into consideration and protection provided to that individual and all other individuals who find themselves in similar circumstances. That is the focus of amendment No. 27.

As for amendment No. 31, again, we should protect the public from harm, not just serious harm. What is the definition of serious harm compared with the definition of harm? Again, we are qualifying the right to protection there, and that is not appropriate.

I think I have addressed the amendments, if the Minister wishes to respond.