Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 20, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: "(13) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), nothing in this section shall operate to prohibit bona fide representatives of the Press and researchers from attending proceedings to which this section relates.

(b) Where the court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so—

(i) in order to preserve the anonymity of a party to the proceedings or any child to whom the proceedings relate,

(ii) by reason of the nature or circumstances of the case, or

(iii) as it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice,

the court may, on its own motion, or on application to it by a party to the proceedings by order—

(I) exclude, or otherwise restrict the attendance of, bona fide representatives of the Press and researchers from the court during the hearing or particular parts of it, or

(II) prohibit or restrict the publication or broadcasting of any evidence given or referred to during the proceedings or any part of such evidence, and any such order may, with regard to any restriction, contain such conditions as the court considers appropriate.

(c) In determining whether or not to make an order under paragraph (b), a court shall have regard to the desirability of promoting public confidence in the administration of justice and to any other matter that appears to it to be relevant and shall, in particular, have regard to the will and preferences of the person to whom the proceedings relate.".

A clear and consistent approach is required regarding cases which are held "otherwise" than in public, which both ensures the dignity and privacy of the individual and ensures transparency and promotion of the public's understanding of this new law. While it is vital to ensure the will, preferences and privacy of individuals are respected, it is also crucial that the public is aware of how this monumental change to Ireland's capacity laws is operating in practice.

This amendment allows for judicial discretion and draws on existing legislation to ensure representatives of bona fide press, researchers and legal professionals can still attend and report on cases, subject to reasonable restrictions. The language of the amendment mirrors that which enabled Carol Coulter and her team on the childcare law reporting project to attend and report anonymously on cases regarding child protection in the Family Courts, a project which has been widely praised by the Judiciary and legal practitioners, ourselves in these two Houses as well as social services, for increasing transparency of judicial decision making. We could call it the Carol Coulter amendment. We would all agree that her work and that of her team has been phenomenal.

I suggest setting up a similar type of infrastructure around this Bill, especially for academic researchers. I am mindful of academic researchers in all of this. Such access is important in order that we can generate research papers around this and generate best practice into the future. That is the justification for the amendment.