Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I too broadly welcome this Bill. I thank the Minister and Senator McDowell for their work and the speed at which this legislation has been brought to the House. We all appreciate the urgency in correcting this issue. It is also welcome to see the Government supporting a Bill from the Opposition and that Members are working collaboratively to strengthen legislation, especially in a case such as this. We are all united in a common purpose and I do not think anybody here will oppose the Bill.

As others have said, this legislation became necessary because of the decision of the Court of Appeal last October when it ruled that reporting restrictions on the identification of children who have been victims of a criminal offence also apply where the child is deceased or has turned 18 years. In the case of the young lad this morning, one only has to do a Google search to discover his name was Keane Mulready-Woods. He will never turn 18 and cannot be named publicly for legal reasons. His murder was particularly horrific and a search is ongoing. That young man lost his life and not naming him dehumanises rather than protects him.

Most of us do not understand the logic at work here. This ruling also comes into effect once a person has been charged with killing a child. We saw that not long ago in the case of Josh Dunne, who was aged 16. He could be named initially and his name was in the public arena. We also saw events to celebrate him as a talented footballer and how much he meant to his family, his friends and the community. Once a person was charged in that case, suddenly he could no longer be named. Those are the immediate cases we have seen.

We now have a situation where in the immediate aftermath of an unimaginable tragedy resulting in the killing of a child, families and communities cannot grieve publicly or share the memory of a child. An oppressive wall of silence comes down once someone has been charged and it is only right that we try to deal with that. Parents can no longer identify their child by name, use a picture or refer to details of the child's life if it might identify him or her. Those parents will never be able to publish or broadcast their child's name and that restriction continues beyond the trial in respect of events to remember a child. That is very tough and other Deputies have mentioned similar cases.

Another consequence of the ruling is that the media are prevented from identify an adult charged with a murder if there is any chance that might identify the victim. The position is different if the person charged is a child. Generally, this means that only perfect strangers who are convicted of killing a child can be named and never close relatives or associates. Unfortunately, we know that the vast majority of homicides are committed by people known to their victims. This means that child murderers who are adults are largely shielded from the public, while we continue to know the names and faces of those who murder adults. There is a clear distinction there.

The wording of section 252 of the Children Act 2001 is clear. It is difficult to imagine how a court could have ruled otherwise and how a judge could reasonably argue that the word "child" does not apply to a deceased child. I found that difficult to absorb and process. The ruling had devastating consequences and overturned decades of practice. The ruling is putting the parents and loved ones of murdered children through added trauma at a time of unimaginable hardship and grief. This was of course unintended by those who wrote the Children Act 2001. There is an obvious and vital need to protect children who have been the victims of crime and abuse and must go through court proceedings and relive their trauma. No one would argue against their right to remain anonymous and to be shielded from public scrutiny. However, no one intended for this practice to apply to children who have been murdered. Those are children who will always remain children and will be denied the right to be adults and to speak for themselves.

In every tragic case between the enactment of the 2001 Act and last year, where families wished to do so, we listened as we were told the stories of their children. We heard about their personalities, hobbies and dreams for the future. We heard their names, what they meant to their families and why they needed justice for their children. The families spoke of their grief and it is important that people understand that. We often use words inappropriately. For example, it is described as "devastating" when somebody loses a football match.

It is only when one sees people in this kind of scenario that one realises what the word "devastating" really means. The killing of a child absolutely ruins lives.

A criminal trial does not tell the story of a victim; it determines whether the accused is guilty or not guilty, which in itself can be harrowing. So often, the essence of a person or child at the heart of the trial is lost. The details heard by the public are often clinical and dark, telling us nothing about the child who was murdered or telling us, as has happened, what the murderer thought of the child, which can again be very difficult for a family to listen to. Those children can no longer speak for themselves, so it is their parents who have to step forward in the midst of their grief to correct the public record or to eulogise their child. Over recent months, parents have been stripped of that right to speak publicly about the memory of their child, and likewise, children have been stripped of their right to be remembered. In the past few weeks, there was a case where the child's name could not be mentioned. All the footage focused on the hands of the parent trying to express how important that child was and how they did not want them to be remembered for what had happened to them but rather for what they meant to the parent.

This issue needs to be rectified without delay. The State has inadvertently put families through immeasurable trauma, although I fully accept that the legislation was passed without foresight that this would occur. The aim of the Bill must surely be to return to the practices that existed before the ruling or even to improve on matters. If there are to be revisions, it may be that the reporting of some court evidence relating to a deceased child will not occur, especially when it is offensive or disrespectful or, in some cases, will add substantially to the trauma of the surviving family members. There have been examples of this and there is a very negative public reaction to that type of reporting. We need to ensure that families can refer in media reporting to the names of their children without the need for a court order, that the perpetrators can be named and that the Bill will apply retrospectively, an issue the Minister might address. I accept it has not been a long time since the court judgment issued but it has impacted on certain families. Parents have been silenced over recent months. What will happen when the restrictions are lifted by this legislation? In many cases, legislation does not apply retrospectively, but we need some assurances on that.

While we are all in agreement that this legislation must be passed quickly, we must also take the greatest possible level of care in considering its wording. We are here to rectify the unintended consequences of how the Children Act was interpreted and it is vital that we do not have to return in months or years to undo something in the legislation before us. I have some concerns that rather than returning to the previous practices, the Bill may introduce new restrictions in regard to the naming of deceased children where they did not previously exist. I refer to cases that involve another living child, either as a witness or as the perpetrator. In cases where the perpetrator is a child, the provisions under the principal Act are clear. It is my understanding that we are here to ensure that parents and the media can identify a deceased child automatically, without the need for a court order.

Within the Bill, however, there are stipulations that this provision will not be dispensed with in cases where another child is involved, and the Minister outlined a couple of scenarios in that regard. Imagine a case where the best friend of a child is a witness to their murder and the particular details of the case could result in the friend being identified. The parents of the friend, entirely reasonably, may wish for their child to remain anonymous, while the parents of the deceased may want to have their child publicly identified in order that they can hold remembrance events and so on. Even a publication such as a local newspaper identifying such an event could be problematic in that case. Are we to understand that the court must rule in favour of one child against another, that the parents could be pitted against each other and that the parents of the deceased child could still be silenced? It is important that the Minister address some of these points.

The Bill makes reference to section 93 of the Children Act, which relates to cases where a child is the perpetrator of a crime. What happens in such cases? The anonymity of a juvenile offender is enshrined in law, as we know, but does this mean that the parents of children killed in often horrific circumstances cannot automatically name their child and must await a court order? It is important that the Minister be clear on this. When it comes to interpretation, as we discussed earlier in regard to different legislation, often these debates and what a Minister says will be important in helping with that interpretation, particularly when there is ambiguity. The Minister may wish to comment specifically on those points for that very reason.

It goes without saying that in these circumstances, a court order may not rule in favour of allowing a deceased child to be identified and that a family and the media may once again be silenced. As legislators, we cannot make any assumptions as to how a court will rule in these cases. We need to make sure there is flexibility and balance in this legislation to ensure we are not pitting the rights of one child against those of another. We cannot put more families through the trauma of being forced to remain silent about their child’s memory, by being required to have their voice or appearance obscured in order to speak to their grief publicly or by being precluded from engaging in public events in remembrance of the deceased child. Will the Minister outline her understanding as to how cases such as these will be dealt with? Does she believe there is any chance that some families will be forced to remain silent on the memory of their child when they want to speak, in order to protect the rights of another? Nevertheless, I fully understand that some families will not wish to do this. After the Bill had been passed in the Seanad, its sponsor, Senator McDowell, voiced some of his concerns about how it would be interpreted by the media in terms of what would or would not be able to be reported. I am concerned that those points were made even after the Bill had been passed in the Seanad.

The children the Bill concerns have lost their lives by virtue of having been involved in a terrible crime. We are all trying to ensure that their legacy will not be obliterated and that they will not become so anonymous that the tragic circumstances cannot even be recounted. There is also a potential learning for society. The devastation that is seen can be instructive to the rest of society in regard to the impact such a crime can have. People may not know the deceased but they will at least understand the consequences.

The Minister is not here now but I have a very short comment with regard to her pending maternity leave. I wish her well. I know there is another process to take place. Individual cases make poor law. We need law that presumes a woman who is pregnant can take maternity leave. We should plan for maternity leave for women who are involved in politics, not exclusively at the level of the Dáil and Seanad but also for councillors. While valid in its own right, being a councillor is often the way in which people enter this House. If we are to see women coming through, we need to make arrangements at all levels.

See this speech in context