Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy Durkan for raising this matter which is a concern for him. As the Deputy would know, legislation that is enacted does not apply to events that occurred in the past. Therefore, the Deputy is wrong to say the legislation to which he referred should have applied to this case.

As the Deputy is aware, the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 came into effect on 13 January 2012. I consider this an extremely important piece of legislation. There had previously been a lack of clarity on the rights of a householder when confronted with a burglar in their home, but this Act in one piece of legislation sets out what those rights are and makes it clear that a person may use reasonable force to defend themselves in their home. The Act recognises the special constitutional protection which applies to a person's home under Article 40.5 which states: "The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law."

It is important to clarify that the provisions and protections in the Act only apply when a person is in their dwelling or curtilage and does not apply to a public place. The Act allows a householder, where they believe a trespasser is entering the dwelling to commit a criminal act, to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to protect people in the dwelling from assault, to protect property, to prevent the commission of a crime or to make a lawful arrest. The Act explicitly provides that a person is under no obligation to retreat from their home. A person who uses reasonable force, as provided for in the Act, cannot be sued for damages by a burglar. I emphasise this in response to Deputy Durkan's comments.

It is also important to remember that other laws also deal with the issue of burglary and in particular the penalties which apply to those convicted of such offences. Burglary is a criminal offence which carries serious penalties. The law in this area is governed by the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. Section 12 of that Act provides:

A person is guilty of burglary if he or she—

(a) enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit an arrestable offence, or

(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser, commits or attempts to commit any such offence therein.

A person guilty of burglary is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or both. I note what the Deputy said about the particular case he raised. The courts are independent and it is for the Judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence to impose in any particular case.

Section 13 of the 2001 Act provides:

A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he or she commits any burglary and at the time has with him or her any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence or any explosive.

A person convicted of aggravated burglary is liable to imprisonment for life. In addition, section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 provides that a court may make a monitoring order for persons convicted of aggravated burglary. The court may also make a protection of persons order. Such an order prohibits the offender from engaging in any behaviour that would be likely to cause the victim of the offence fear, distress or alarm or would be likely to amount to intimidation of any such person. The same Act provides mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders.

It is not a matter for me as Minister for Justice and Equality to comment on the particular circumstances of any settlement made in a private civil action. The settlement of any individual claim is a matter for the relevant parties to decide on. In the case mentioned by the Deputy, it seems the claim made by the person convicted of burglary was addressed by the insurance company of the person against whom the claim was made. Insurance companies are free to make settlements for pragmatic reasons in any given case. However, as Minister, I regard the reported level of settlement reached and compensation paid in this case surprising.

See this speech in context