Dáil debates

Tuesday, 27 June 2006

Criminal Law (Home Defence) Bill 2006: Second Stage.

 

8:00 pm

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The Deputy admitted as much when challenged in the House. He said he was giving blanket immunity in respect of any civil action in those circumstances.

We must live in the real world and Senator Morrissey's approach is far better. He said the kind of trespassers with whom he was concerned were those who broke into a house to commit a crime, not just those who crashed a party, whom most people would consider to be a reasonable category of people to protect. Who is it more reasonable to divest of all civil law protections — a gatecrasher or somebody who enters a house as a criminal? Senator Morrissey's Bill deals with somebody who sees their car being vandalised or set alight and goes out to stop it, but the Fine Gael Bill abandons that person, ordering them to stay in their house. They must retreat and allow their car to be vandalised because outside their house a different standard applies. That is not reasonable.

Thinking Members of this House listening to the speeches delivered this evening, referring to difficulties and differences among the Government parties, might conclude there was a lot of opportunism in the way this Bill was presented. They might think it a tabloid, over-the-top effort to create a fuss, without the issue being thought through properly. I gave an undertaking that I would consider reasonable proposals but I have not received reasonable proposals. I deeply regret the fact that Deputy O'Keeffe, to whom plenty of expert legal advice is available, came up with unreasonable proposals in order to cut a dash with the fringes of public opinion who he thought might be excited by a crude and blunt instrument of the kind he is now moving in this House.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.