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

I commend the Minister on bringing this important and interesting legislation before the House. It contains a variety of measures that will be particularly helpful to those unfortunate enough to find themselves victims of crime. If we look at Part 2 of this Bill, I believe it introduces a measure I had sought previously that will impose a tougher sentence on those found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

In March 2019, I introduced legislation here entitled the Criminal Justice (Conspiracy to Murder) Bill 2019. This sought to amend section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and, more specifically, section 4 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. We had found ourselves in the anomalous position where people could find themselves convicted of conspiracy to murder and yet were only going to face a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. This was notwithstanding the fact that the principal offence, that of murder, is punishable by a sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, I welcome this legislation being brought forward.

I brought my Bill forward in 2019 because of the specific example of a man who had come to Ireland from eastern Europe to kill another individual living here. Fortunately, through the good work of An Garda Síochána, this man was apprehended when he had a gun and was on his way to shoot, and no doubt kill, this other person. He decided to plead guilty, and because he did so, he had to be given some credit by the court. This resulted in this person being given a sentence of six years. In effect, this meant he would be out of prison after four years. Therefore, somebody who had the clear intention of murdering another person got away with a sentence of four years. What the Minister has done in this legislation, in the context of what I sought to do in the legislation I proposed in 2019, is commendable. The law must be changed concerning this issue.

One issue I ask the Minister to examine is the requirement to introduce a series of consequential amendments. It is noted that one of these amendments is to section 77, which deals with double jeopardy. A new provision will be contained within paragraph (c) of that new section. I ask the Minister and her officials to consider a situation that may arise in this context. I refer to people who may find themselves being convicted in another jurisdiction of an offence committed in Ireland. Let us take the example where someone has been convicted of the serious offence of murder in absentiain another jurisdiction, as the law of that jurisdiction may allow. What impact would that have if the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, decided to prosecute such an offence in Ireland? It may be the case that the new paragraph (c) will not have an effect, but this aspect must be closely examined.

Regarding Part 3 of the legislation, this deals with the amendment to Firearms Act 1925. I note that the reason for this is to ensure that the Forensic Science Ireland laboratory is able to use firearms for the purposes of its work and investigations. As the Minister is aware, I would have liked to have seen the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 amended as well to ensure a tougher sentence was provided for in the case of those found in possession of a knife for the purpose of inflicting harm on another. Hopefully, this is something the Government may revisit at some stage in the future.

Part 4 of the Bill deals with the offences of harassment, stalking, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation. I welcome the establishment of these new offences of non-fatal strangulation and-or non-fatal suffocation. More importantly, however, section 13 deals with the new offence of harassment or stalking.

To date, the offence of harassment is dealt with under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. In my opinion, that was a section, irrespective of the issue of stalking being brought in, that needed to be updated. It is very difficult to prosecute somebody for harassment. However, the way in which the new offences of harassment and of stalking have been drafted in this Bill will, I believe, make it easier for the prosecution of those offences. It is particularly welcome that the new section 10(3) of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 will now set out examples of the type of behaviour that will result in somebody being found to have been guilty of committing the offences of harassment or stalking. When examples are set out, as has been done in this legislation, it makes it easier for a prosecutor. It also makes it easier for a jury to determine whether the offence has been committed.

That brings me on to Part 5 of the legislation. It is a Part that has not been given sufficient attention in our discussions or in the debate to date. As I mentioned, it is very difficult sometimes to get a person convicted of the offence of harassment or the new offence of stalking, but that does not mean efforts cannot be made within the civil courts to try to ensure orders are made restraining individuals from carrying out certain types of behaviour. What we have in Part 5 of this legislation is the establishment of civil orders that can be given by the District Court against what is referred to in the legislation as "relevant conduct". The type of conduct we see listed here in section 15(3) is conduct which everyone can see is harassing and is impactful on the quality of life of a person who is subjected to it. However, because of the lack of persistence of it, it probably does not rise to constitute a criminal offence, but I welcome the fact that individuals who are subjected to this type of behaviour and, indeed, members of An Garda Síochána who have identified that individuals are being subjected to this type of behaviour can bring an application before the District Court which court can make a civil order restraining a person from following or communicating by any means with the affected individual or by engaging in the type of relevant conduct we have prohibited in this section.

Sometimes civil orders can be more effective, from the point of view of a victim, than the criminal sanction and the criminal process. The criminal process can be difficult for a victim. It sometimes also does not favour victims in terms of trying to stop the behaviour at a particular time. However, here we have a civil sanction that will be decided on the balance of probability as the civil standard of proof and I welcome the fact a District Court judge will be able to direct a person to stop engaging in what is referred to as relevant conduct for a period of five years. The only slight criticism I would have, and I would ask the Minister to look at it, is that under section 25 these hearings will be held in private. Hearings before our courts should be held in public. Individuals involved in this type of behaviour should be exposed to public scrutiny and the hearings should be available for public appraisal.

I thank the Acting Chairman, Deputy Devlin, and the Minister.

See this speech in context