Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I draw Deputy Rabbitte's attention to subsection (5), which he has referred to. It gives a sentencing court the power to prohibit the broadcasting or publication of all or part of a victim impact statement in the interests of justice. This mechanism provides the court with an alternative solution to that advocated by the Court of Criminal Appeal, albeit in obiter dictum remarks in the Wayne O'Donoghue case. In that case, as the Deputy has indicated, the mother of the victim referred to matters when making her impact statement, which had not been given in evidence in court, that made serious allegations against a convicted person. The additional material attracted extensive media coverage, which was, undoubtedly, very damaging to the reputation of the convicted person.

As the Director of Public Prosecutions noted in his address to the annual conference at the UCC Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights on 11 June, had subsection (5) been enforced at the time of the O'Donoghue sentencing hearing, the trial judge would have been entitled to make an order prohibiting publication of the matters which were alleged, but which had not, in fact, been presented, never mind proved in the course of the trial.

I believe the House will agree that the solution provided by subsection (5) is more in tune with the need to treat victims with a degree of sensitivity, and is preferable by far to a trial judge, warning a victim that he or she risks being held in contempt of court, with the potential consequences that might flow from that. It is in that spirt that I suggest subsection (5) provides a good solution, and I suggest the Deputy considers withdrawing the amendment. As I believe subsection (5) is a better solution, I cannot accept the amendment as proposed. Since I believe the existing provision is the best solution, I cannot accept the amendment as proposed.

See this speech in context