John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to flag that I do not intend to use anything like the 20 minutes allotted to me.

I was in the House when this Bill was introduced by the Minister. It is a short, complex Bill dealing with a complex issue. I listened keenly to Deputy Alan Farrell's contribution and noted how connected he was to the issue. My party colleague, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, was very alive to the implications of Mr. Justice George Birmingham's interpretation of the existing law. He was particularly alive to the consequences of the judge's decision in a week when there had been an incident that would have pertained specifically to the issues this Bill seeks to address. I commend my colleague, Deputy O'Callaghan, for prompting the debate on this and Senator McDowell for coming up with a Bill on it. I also commend the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, for responding so quickly and the Government for taking on board the necessity for this legislation.

The Bill aims to protect the reputation of children and to assist the families of deceased children who have been killed or murdered. It was very difficult for grieving families to know that the perpetrator of the crime, the person who took their child away, would never be named because of a law which was probably never intended to cover this kind of crime. The law was intended to protect the identity of children in other circumstances but was interpreted by our courts as impeding the publication of the name of the perpetrator in order to protect the child. That law was obviously very well intentioned but it is time to deal with its consequences.

I was here on the night that this Bill was first debated. I note that the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, is here today and welcome his response to an issue raised by Deputy O'Callaghan in relation to cases where the identity of the deceased child could not be published in circumstances where there is a living child witness. This was a matter of concern to Deputy O'Callaghan and he highlighted it in his contribution to the debate. I note that there have been further consultations with the Attorney General and it is the Government's intention to table an amendment on Committee Stage revising subsections (2) and (2A) of section 252, on which the Minister will provide more detail later. That was the only anomaly that stood in the way of the Bill being dealt with pretty rapidly in the Dáil.

Nobody could argue with the thrust of the Bill. One or two concerns were raised about one or two aspects of the Bill that might have diluted its impact on protecting children but the Minister and the Minister of State clearly intend to deal with them. It looks like any minor impediment to making the law do what was originally intended seems to have been dealt with. The original Bill contains mandatory reporting restrictions where a trial relates to an offence against a child or where a child is a witness in any such proceedings. In 2020, Mr. Justice George Birmingham upheld the High Court's interpretation of that section of the Bill as meaning that the reporting restriction relating to offences against children also applied in circumstances where the child is deceased or has turned 18. That is what prompted our colleagues to bring forward legislation that would deal with this. This Bill amends the original legislation to enable the courts to remove the restrictions on publishing the names of the perpetrators of these crimes, which is very welcome.

There is a profoundly negative impact of rulings under this law on grieving parents whereby they are not able to remember their deceased children's names or legacies in public as a result and as a consequence of that. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, made reference to this in her contributions in the Dáil.

The original intent of section 252 of the Children Act 2001 was designed to protect child witnesses and child victims from the negative impacts of being publicly identified in criminal proceedings. We do not have to dwell too long, however, to know that publication of those kinds of details forms part of the justice and part of the consolation that victims of crime and their families can derive from the justice system. That little piece of justice, which is quite profound in its impact, has been denied to grieving families over a period of years. Clearly, the judgment of Mr. Justice Birmingham left the Oireachtas with no alternative but to move. The Oireachtas has moved really quickly in identifying that the main issue to be addressed is to allow the identity of a child who has been unlawfully killed to be published, which would also remove the current difficulty with identifying the person who has been charged in connection with the death. If a person perpetrates a crime, part of the punishment is in being named and shamed. That is one of the real difficulties with miscarriages of justice where people find themselves wrongfully charged. Because of the nature of the crime their names are allowed to be entered into the public arena. We are aware of many such cases over the years and how, due to the stigma that attaches to it, the course of these people's lives were profoundly, inexorably and irreversibly changed. We can, therefore, see the impact of publishing the name of the person who has perpetrated a crime against a child or who is involved in the murder and killing of a child. Part of the punishment and part of justice being seen to be done is the publication of the perpetrator's name.

That is my contribution. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, for his presence and for responding to the minor queries raised on particular sections of the Bill.

See this speech in context