Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and Deputies Mitchell and Butler for their contributions. Listening to Deputies Mitchell and Butler reminded me that, to a large extent, the main victims of the types of issues we are discussing are women. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases of death caused by spousal violence, it is men who end up killing women. If the family of a woman find themselves in the situation where their loved one has been killed and then they see afterwards that the individual responsible for killing her will in some way benefit financially, that must be a terrible issue for them to have to deal with.

I know it is not always the case that it is men who are responsible for these murders. On foot of the case in his constituency to which he referred, the Minister of State will be aware that in exceptional circumstances it can be the other way around. It is worth acknowledging that these horrendous crimes predominantly involve husbands killing wives or male partners killing female partners.

The Minister of State is correct in stating that this is a complex issue. While it is complex, what we are trying to achieve is not. Everyone in the House agrees and recognises that the current position is untenable. It is inappropriate for the law to continue as it is at present whereby someone who has committed and even been convicted of the serious offence of murder or manslaughter, can benefit financially from that act. Everyone in the House agrees that has to change.

At the outset, I commented that the Civil Liability Act is fine legislation. While it is, the good thing about what I am proposing here is that we will not change in any substantive way the Civil Liability Act. We will simply insert a new part dealing with the situations we have discussed here.

The Minister of State raised three issues. The first is the Government's concern that it may not be permitted to specify in the legislation people who aid and abet criminal offences such as manslaughter and murder. The logic behind the Law Reform Commission's specifically excluding aiding and abetting was that it believed in the context of an application before the civil courts that aiding and abetting are quite vague in their definition and can be indeterminate in their meaning. I have no difficulty working with the Select Committee on Justice and Equality and the Government in respect of this matter. If at the end of our deliberations we believe it is appropriate to remove the section I inserted, I am happy to remove it. However, it is important to emphasise, as I did in my earlier contribution, that in Ireland aiders and abetters are prosecuted as principals.

The second concern the Minister of State raised relates to section 46(e), which deals with holding a person who has not been convicted of such criminal offence liable for the wrongful killing of another individual. That already happens in our law. There is nothing to stop individuals from taking cases against persons for assault or indeed for family members of a deceased to take a case against another person for his or her liability for the death of that family member. It can be done at present in the civil courts.

Obviously, it can be contentious. It can mean that the public at large might believe the person is criminally liable for the terrible crime. However, that is not what the court finding actually means. A court finding is that on the balance of probabilities a person has been found liable for the intentional killing of a person. Although people may find this strange, it does not mean that the person has been convicted of a criminal offence but it means that they are liable before the civil courts and can be held liable in damages for it. I do not believe there is anything desperately unusual about this. It can happen in Irish law at present. It is unusual to see it codified in a statute to say that the civil courts can reach findings that, in effect and in meaning for the rest of the public, will mean that the person against whom the decision is made is held to be liable for the wrongful killing of another person.

The Minister of State's third point relates to costs. Costs can be a deterrent to the family of a victim taking a case before the court. It is important for the legislation to set out that the strong likelihood is that the family will not be held liable for their costs even if they do not succeed in the case. If we do not stipulate anything in respect of costs, people will be nervous about taking such a case because if it does not succeed for them, the rule should be that costs follow the event. It would be terrible if a family brought an application legitimately under this legislation, did not succeed for some technical reason and then find themselves afterwards penalised with an order for costs. There is a purpose and logic to including the cost provision in the legislation. The Minister of State will note that the statute as drafted gives discretion to the court. The court may depart from that rule if it believes it is appropriate.

The Minister of State indicated that the Government believes it may be inappropriate in civil proceedings to have an individual categorised as an offender. That is a minor issue and we will be able to deal with it. We could just refer to that person as the respondent or the defendant as in the case in much other legislation.

I thank all the Members for their contributions. I acknowledge the support on all sides. I think it is good legislation and we should try to expedite it. Part of the reason for such interest in this is that people think it is bizarre that somebody can kill another person and then benefit financially.

See this speech in context