Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “(5A) Commencement of section 3DA shall not begin until after the completion of all stages of section 26B (as amended).”.

There are a lot of amendments to portions of legislation because this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. While much of the focus has been around stalking, which of course is something we have to deal with appropriately, the amendments I have here relate to the small part that deals with the firearms expert committee and the recommendations that have come from that.

Last June, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, set up the firearms expert committee which has been meeting since then and has done some work. However, its work is not nearly complete and it has a lot of work still to do. It has not come up with the report we expected from it. We have been contacted by various organisations, as other Deputies will have been, which engage in country pursuits. Some are games councils etc. across the country. These are licensed firearm holders. There are also people who engage in competitive marksmanship, which is a sport. They also have concerns around this. It would be appropriate for the Minister to accept the amendments to ensure there is enough time and space left to consult all these organisations properly which represent a large body of people who hold licensed firearms. Thankfully, we do not have a problem in this country with licensed firearms, unlike many other jurisdictions around the world where there are huge problems. We certainly do not have that problem. We have problems in other parts of it but not in that area. It would be appropriate if the Minister would accept these two amendments so we would wait until the proper report comes forward from the firearms expert committee and then have proper consultation on that report with all the stakeholders involved.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An expert committee has been set up to look into the whole area of firearms. It is important the committee is allowed to do its work in as expeditious a manner as possible and that, once that is completed, there is proper engagement. I think every Member of this House has received correspondence from various games councils. We are talking about licensed firearms holders. Many of them are the only ones keeping vermin under control. We all from a farming background have experience of the damage caused at the moment by this lack of control. It is important we have the report, proper engagement and deal with the issue in its totality at that stage.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 provides that the proposed new section 3DA of the Firearms Act 1925, as inserted by section 10 of the Bill, shall not begin until the completion of all stages of the proposed new section 26B proposed in Deputy Kenny’s amendment No. 2. Colleagues will be aware the proposed new section 3DA of the Firearms Act 1925 provides that, “On the day that is 3 months after the relevant date, any firearm certificate for a semi-automatic centre-fire rifle that was first granted after 18 September 2015 and that was in force immediately before the relevant date shall stand revoked.” The relevant date is the date that the above section comes into operation. This measure is a cap as opposed to an outright ban. It is because persons who held a firearms certificate for these types of rifles before the date of the then Minster’s announcement on 18 September 2015 and whose certificate was in force immediately before the relevant date will be able to continue to renew their certificates. Persons who obtained firearm certificates in respect of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles after 18 September 2015 will have their certificate revoked. The proposed new section 26B in amendment No. 2 requires that I publish the considerations and recommendations of the firearms expert committee within three months of the completion of its work. This refers to the advisory group Deputy Kenny spoke about which was established last year by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne. Its terms of reference include carrying out an assessment of all types of firearms to determine their current use under the existing licensing system and their suitability for future licensing. This proposed section also requires that I engage in a public consultation process within six months of the completion of the committee’s work.

I would note that the cap on semi-automatic centre-fire rifles provided for in this Bill has been the very long-standing policy of successive governments. It was announced by the then Minister on 18 September 2015. Nothing about this is in any way rushed. Its enactment will be the culmination of a process which long pre-dates the establishment of the firearms expert committee, which is another important factor. This was envisaged before the establishment of the firearms expert committee. I am advised that we that the report of the firearms expert committee will be submitted to the Minister of State this week. The committee was free to examine any issue falling within its terms of reference, including the licensing of different types of firearms. All of its recommendations will be carefully considered. As has been made clear throughout the process, any subsequent changes to firearms policy or legislation arising from any of the recommendations will be subject to prior consultation with firearms stakeholders. However, as much as I am looking forward to seeing what improvements can be made to firearms licensing on foot of the committee’s report, it does not make sense from my perspective to delay the introduction of a cap on semi-automatic centre-fire rifles as already provided for in the Bill because this was originally motivated by public safety concerns.

As for the proposal that the committee’s report be published and consulted on within three to six months, that has always been my intention and the intention of the Department and it remains our intention. The commitment to consult on the report has been reiterated numerous times by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.

Indeed, he intends to do so in a considerably shorter timeframe than envisaged in this amendment, which, I think, would provide him six months. There is no requirement to provide for such consultation in statutory form in the Bill. The commitment to do so is already a matter of public record, and I reiterate that on the record of the Dáil now.

We should go ahead and pass the Bill as it stands. We do not need to accept the amendments. There has been a very long lead-in time and a long debate. It was right and proper for the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to establish the firearms safety committee. It is right and proper that the committee concludes and reports to him, which it will do imminently. The Minister of State will then have an opportunity to fulfil his commitment to consult and engage on that. If changes are required, there is an opportunity for this House to consider them, however, I am not in a position to accept these amendments for the reasons outlined.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 14, after line 33, to insert the following:

“Recommendations of the Firearms Expert Committee

26B.The Minister shall-

(a) not more than 3 months after the completion of work carried out by the Firearms Expert Committee, publish in full the considerations and recommendations of the Firearms Expert Committee, and

(b) not more than 6 months after the publication of the Firearms Expert Committee report, engage in a public consultation process regarding the recommendations made by the committee related to the future of licensing.”.”.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“Administering a substance with intent (“spiking”)

20.The Act of 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 12:

“12A.(1) A person who administers to or causes to be taken by another person (‘C’) a drug or other substance-

(a) knowing that C does not consent to what is being done, and

(b) with intent thereby to stupefy or overpower C so as to enable himself or herself or any other person to engage in sexual activity with or involving C,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to a Class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both.

(3) In subsection (1), ‘sexual activity’ has the meaning assigned to it by section 2 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.”.”.

As the Minister may know, the Labour Party raised with the Minister, Deputy McEntee, the stand-alone offence of spiking. On Committee Stage, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, undertook to engage with me further about the proposed offence of spiking but, unfortunately, she did not get the chance. There does not seem to be a Government amendment to address this issue. What we are trying to achieve is to have a stand-alone offence of spiking. The Minister points to the existing offence of poisoning under section 12 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 but there are two relevant differences. Perhaps we can work on this together to achieve something substantial, potentially not through this amendment, but through the goodwill of the Minister and the Department.

First, the spiking offence would involve administering a substance without consent for the purpose of facilitating a sexual offence. Being of a more serious nature, it would carry a maximum sentence of ten years rather than the three years maximum provided for poisoning. That is the first difference that a stand-alone offence of spiking would necessitate. Second, the current poisoning offence states that inducing sleep or unconsciousness is covered, which suggests that anything less than that, such as stupefying a person or overpowering them while they remain conscious, is not covered. Therefore, while poisoning forces an unconscious state, somebody can spike a person while they are still conscious but extremely drowsy, and then assault or rape that person.

A criminal statute has to be given the interpretation most favourable to the accused. Some of the most common drugs suspected of use for sexual assault or that can be used to commit physical and sexual harm can sedate or incapacitate a victim without necessarily making them unconscious, but making them more vulnerable to attack. In these circumstances, we do not believe the current law will sufficiently protect the victim.

The need for this offence has only been highlighted by the findings of the independent review group chaired by Ms Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon, which investigated bullying and sexual abuse in the Defence Forces and which is at the top of our minds today. The group found serious complaints of spiking and attempted spiking. We are not dancing on the head of a pin here. We are trying to do what is right. We do not want a situation where somebody is not successfully prosecuted in court because we did not have a stand-alone offence or is prosecuted for an offence with a maximum penalty of three years when clearly a very different offence has been committed. We seek the Minister's goodwill and to work collaboratively. This may not be the vehicle through which to achieve this aim but I am interested in hearing the Minister's point of view.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Ó Ríordáin on bringing this forward. He has identified a really important area of law and a gap in the current criminal scheme that we need to address. Deputy McNamara raises an important point about the intent offence but that would be built into the substantive offence in any case. I hope we can work with the Minister on this because we want to achieve the necessary change in the law through working collaboratively.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment. Will the Minister indicate whether he will accept the amendment? If he does not propose to do so, will he indicate whether he would accept a Private Member's Bill or some other mechanism that would allow this issue to remain on the books?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, thank Deputy Ó Ríordáin for his work on this issue and for the way in which we are engaging on it. I hope we will engage to find a way forward. As the Deputy has said, he discussed this issue with my colleague, Deputy McEntee, on Committee Stage. It is an issue my Department has been considering and one on which I have spoken in recent weeks because I share the concern. We all want to reach the same point in this regard.

I am particularly conscious of the issue in my dual role because, as Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, I have heard about it directly from student union groups and from the Union of Students in Ireland, USI. Indeed, the USI came together with An Garda Síochána to run an awareness campaign around spiking and its changing nature. We have seen some relatively new things such as people being injected and spiked that way. It is also important that staff in premises know what to look out for. This is a very serious issue and should be treated as such. It is true to say that there are limited data but, having said that, the number of reports of spiking has increased. We have also seen that in the UK's figures. The Deputy will be aware that, as I have said, we have launched an awareness campaign with the USI and others.

I will read the official response into the record of the House. It is quite important to do so as we try to progress this matter. As noted by my colleague, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, on Committee Stage, section 12 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 provides for a general poisoning offence and already criminalises anyone who spikes a drink. Section 12 applies to anyone who intentionally or recklessly administers a substance capable of interfering substantially with another person's bodily functions, which explicitly includes unconsciousness or sleep and would certainly encompass an intent to stupefy or overpower. It is important to emphasise that where a sexual assault, which carries a ten-year maximum sentence, or rape, which carries a maximum of a life sentence, has taken place, these offences may be charged separately. The other existing provision relates to intent to commit a rape or sexual assault. While this is a complex area of law, for present purposes, an attempt can be charged when the perpetrator takes sufficiently proximate steps towards the commission of the crime and has the intent to complete it.

Deputy Ó Ríordáin's proposed offence is, in effect, poisoning, with the additional element of an attempt to overcome or stupefy the victim and to thereby engage in sexual activity with them. I fully understand the Deputy's motivation. We need to do work with regard to where there is a gap in practice. The Deputy has outlined his view on some of those areas. Because we do not want a vacuum or for anyone following these proceedings to think anything to the contrary, if a poisoning is used to commit a sexual offence, that offence should clearly be charged and would carry the penalties I have set out. I would like to engage further on this because absolutely nobody wants to make it in any way more difficult to prosecute than it is under the existing poisoning provision. Advice I have taken raises some concern in that regard. We want to see more successful prosecutions rather than fewer so I would like to tease that through. I will also be requesting further information and observations in this area from the Garda Commissioner.

On the question raised by Deputies Ó Ríordáin and Sherlock as to whether this is a space we could consider further when this Bill moves to the Seanad, by way of a Private Member's Bill or through the Joint Committee on Justice, I would be very happy to do that. I would be very happy to work collaboratively with the Deputies and their colleagues in this regard.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take the Minister at his word. We have to accept the world in which we live and the very damaging effects of the act to which this amendment relates. I know the Department is always concerned with having too much law and believes that there is enough existing law to do the business that courts have to do but I do not think you can have too much law in this area. As I said earlier, we are not really dancing on the head of a pin here. We cannot have a situation where spiking is shoved in under poisoning legislation which, by reason of its very terminology, feels a bit archaic. I am happy to withdraw the amendment but I will take up the Minister's offer of his further engagement with his Department. I get the sense from the script the Department has provided to the Minister that, while there is not outright opposition to what we are suggesting, there may be a little bit of nervousness as to its effects. With the co-operation of the Minister, we will go down the avenues Deputy Sherlock has suggested, such as a Private Member's Bill or a Bill going through the Seanad, in order to pursue this matter.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with my colleagues. There is clearly a space here that needs to be filled. Having youngsters who are out and about, it is something I hear about at first hand. It is happening almost everywhere in the country and young girls and young women in particular fear it when they go out to enjoy a night out. The owners of premises have a responsibility as well. Perhaps licensing laws and so on come into this because it is not only an issue for patrons. We all tell youngsters to look after each other, to watch out for each other and to be careful when they are together but it goes further than that. People who provide premises where alcohol is consumed and where issues of this nature can arise have a responsibility as well. That may be a broader issue than what we are looking at here but I would welcome the carrying out of some work in that regard. If the Minister can come forward with a timeframe within which that could happen, which should be speedy rather than long and drawn-out, that would be very welcome.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues for their contributions.

I will engage constructively. Subject to this House passing the Bill, it will move to the Seanad where we will have an opportunity to tease it through further. We will also have an opportunity with Private Members' time and the general scheme of a sexual offences Bill we intend to bring to the Cabinet shortly. Further to Deputy McNamara's point, there will be plenty of opportunities in this Dáil to tease through further, consider and try to make progress.

For anyone following these proceedings today, I want to make it clear that it is a criminal offence to spike or poison somebody's drink. We obviously need to be very clear and consistent in that messaging. It is a separate and distinct point as to whether we need to update our law on how we go about it. There is criminal legislation already here in section 12 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. In response to Deputy McNamara's question, section 12 of that Act specifically states:

A person shall be guilty of an offence if, knowing that the other does not consent to what is being done, he or she intentionally or recklessly administers to or causes to be taken by another a substance which he or she knows to be capable of interfering substantially with the other's bodily functions.

I will tease through further the points he made. The Department's only concern - I know it will be shared by Deputy Ó Ríordáin and others - is that anything we do has a positive impact such that the Garda will see benefit in it and the Director of Public Prosecutions from point of view of being able to successfully prosecute will see benefit in it. It is in that good faith that I am very happy to engage with the Deputies and try to make progress.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had good engagement with the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and we have had positive engagement here, but it needs to come to a point of agreement and we cannot delay this forever. We are sticking strongly to our view that we need to have it as a stand-alone offence. We will work with the Minister on Seanad amendments and if that is not successful, we will introduce a stand-alone Bill. We appreciate that the Minister may need to engage with the Garda Commissioner and departmental officials. We hope we will be in a position to move forward on this. On that basis I will withdraw the amendment.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 18, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(10A) Where the person has previously been convicted of a sexual crime against the person or a person connected with the other person and the person is on the sex offenders register for the previous crime, the term of the sentence should run concurrent to the period of time that the person remains on the sex offenders register.”.

During an earlier debate on the Sex Offenders (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by the House earlier this afternoon, I moved amendment No. 27 concerning the harassment of victims for which the perpetrator has already been charged, convicted and served their sentence. When someone who has gone through the legal system, been convicted and served their sentence is released from prison, they can continue to harass the individual whom they had abused and on foot of which the conviction was secured. I am referring to circumstances in which the perpetrator, on their release, believes that they have a right to continue to harass the individual in question. My two amendments this evening specifically relate to this.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that proceedings remain in camera. If the original proceedings associated with the conviction were held in camera, any proceedings relating to harassment should also be held in camera. If someone was convicted of a sexual offence, naturally enough that case is held in camerato protect the identity of the victim. The offender's name and details may not be released for that particular reason. We want to ensure that if someone has to go before the courts based on the harassment legislation, those proceedings should also be held in camera. When I discussed this with the Minister, Deputy McEntee, on Committee Stage, she made the point that the vast majority of these will be civil orders and all of those orders will be in camera. However, if they are not civil orders, they are not required to be held in camera. This amendment seeks to ensure that we put that particular safety net in place and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy Naughten's amendment. Clearly there is a need to put measures in place to protect people even after a conviction and as time moves on. We have all come across situations where victims of crime have continued to be harassed even after the person who was convicted has been released and has gone back into the community.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Naughten for introducing the amendment and for raising the matter previously with my colleague the Minister, Deputy McEntee, on Committee Stage. I am particularly conscious of the challenges faced by victims in prosecutions for harassment and stalking. The trial process, while respecting the rights of the accused, must absolutely respect the rights of the victim and it must try to avoid repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation. Ensuring that the trial process respects the rights of victims will encourage those who have been affected to come forward in the first case.

As the Deputy will be aware, there is a general power for the court to exclude members of the public under section 20 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017. In proceedings relating to any offence, this section provides that where it is necessary to prevent such secondary or repeat victimisation, intimidation or retaliation, the public may be excluded from a trial. These criteria are clear and they ensure the court has appropriate power to protect victims.

It is important to note that Article 34.1 of the Constitution requires justice to be administered in public, except in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law. The implication of this is that particular care is needed in imposing an automatic requirement for in cameraproceedings. The purpose of the 2017 Act is to try to balance the constitutional obligation to administer justice in public with the importance of ensuring a victim is not revictimised, retraumatised or intimidated and does not experience retaliation. In the round, I think it gets the balance right.

The new harassment and stalking offences fall within the protections supplied by Part 3 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992. This ensures a number of important safeguards are in place, for example in respect of giving evidence through a television link. However, two further areas are under consideration: a protection against cross-examination and an anonymity provision. Work is continuing on these measures and I hope this goes some way towards where the Deputy is trying to get to. I expect to return to this area in the Seanad and, of course, to then bring such proposed changes back to the Dáil. I want to do more in providing protections for cross-examination on the anonymity provision regarding these offences.

Obviously, as the Deputy predicted I might say, what we have been discussing relates to criminal proceedings, and civil order proceedings will always be in private. These mirror family law proceedings. There are extensive protections in place for applicants relating to these. For those reasons, I do not intend to accept the amendments but I hope we can make further progress in the Seanad.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a bit like the curate's egg. The Minister is right: there is a general provision in law that the public may be excluded. However, the difficulty is that victims are being retraumatised by having to go back to court in the first place. Irrespective of whether it is in camera, they are being retraumatised by having to go back in, give statements to the Garda, provide evidence to the Garda, have witnesses and so forth in order to actually take this. A victim must pass a huge threshold in order for this to come back before the courts in the first place.

The last thing that they should have to consider is that when the State brings that prosecution, they need to rely on whoever the State Solicitor is to seek this order from the court at the start of proceedings and to ensure that actually happens. That doubt, in itself, acts as a barrier for people to come forward. I have listened to what the Minister has said. I hear what he is saying on anonymity. I hope he will reflect on what I have said this evening in the Seanad. I hope he can come back with a balanced amendment to the House that will address the concerns I have raised.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again thank the Deputy. I think everyone in this House can unite behind wanting to reduce the further trauma a victim could face when bringing criminal proceedings to encourage and help people to come forward. Trying to support a victim in the journey through the criminal justice system is very much at the core of our work and at the core of the zero-tolerance strategy towards domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.

I have outlined to the House that the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017 puts some protections in place. Ensuring that the new harassment and stalking offences fall within the protections applied by Part III of the Criminal Evidence Act is also important.

I am concerned about cross-examination where one person is accused of committing an offence against another. Senator Martin published a good Private Members' Bill. I want to consider how we can incorporate it. I also want to consider how to provide greater anonymity. I will table proposals in the Seanad, which will eventually come to the Dáil, when we will have a chance to discuss the matter.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Reluctantly.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 18, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(10A) Where the person has previously been convicted of a sexual crime against the person or a person connected with the other person and the person is on the sex offenders register for the previous crime, the term of the sentence should run concurrent to the period of time that the person remains on the sex offenders register.”.

The "person connected with the other person" could be a relative of the person who has been the victim of a sexual crime. Under this amendment, the term of the harassment order would run concurrently to the remainder of the perpetrator's term on the sex offenders register for the previous crime.

My concern is that the majority of these cases will come as orders and be heard in cameraby the courts. In practice, the victim will be presented with the position that either the perpetrator of the harassment agrees to an order for 18 months or two years or the victim has to go through the trauma of giving evidence. In the latter instance, the order may be applied for a longer period, but the perpetrator will probably appeal it to the higher courts and the victim will have to go through the process again. The last thing that any victim wants is to be retraumatised time and again, so the victim will accept what is put in front of him or her, the perpetrator will agree to an 18-month or two-year order, and we will be back to square one. The perpetrator will ignore the order and the victim of the sexual offence – the person who has been traumatised by the harassment and has had to come before the courts, prepared to give evidence – will have to do it all over again. The victim will have to try to collate the evidence and gather up the witnesses, and will be retraumatised while the harassment is still ongoing.

If someone has an order in place relating to the sex offenders register and has to comply with various provisions for five or ten years or permanently, and if he or she comes before the courts for harassment of the victim after a post-release order has been put in place, the harassment order should run concurrently with that. I do not want to see the following situation happening: a sex offender who is released from prison with a ten-year post-release order in place deciding to harass the victim of the original crime, retraumatising that individual, and the victim having to find enough energy and courage to gather together all of the evidence to seek a harassment order. The very least the courts should do is ensure that the harassment order runs concurrently with the sex offender's post-release order instead of the victim having to negotiate in the courts' corridors how long the order will be in place only for the perpetrator to ignore that order, requiring the victim to go through the whole treadmill again. This is wrong. It should not be left to the victim to drive the process forward. It should be the State's responsibility to protect that individual, who has come forward, given evidence and ensured that a conviction was secured. If the perpetrator, after leaving prison, decides for any reason to harass the victim, the harassment order should automatically be applied to the full period of his or her post-release order. The victim should not be in and out of court trying to have the order enforced. These people have already been abused. That it happened in the first place shows that, for some reason, we and the system let them down. We should not introduce legislation that could facilitate the further traumatisation and abuse of these victims. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his amendment and for the passion with which he spoke to the issue. I understand that the period in the amendment relates to the length of an order under section 10(4), which is being referred to as the no-contact order. Where a person is convicted of an offence under the newly amended section, the court may make an order requiring the offender not to communicate with the victim or approach his or her place of residence, employment or education. Such conviction-based orders are distinct from those under Part 5. The latter are civil in nature and do not require criminal proceedings to be taken. The conviction-based order may be imposed for such a period as the court specifies and there is no maximum period. Breach of such an order is a serious criminal offence and may be punished in the same way as the primary harassment or stalking offences would be. A maximum penalty of up to ten years' imprisonment applies.

These orders, while primarily protective in purpose, are imposed in addition to, or as an alternative to, other punishments. This is distinct from the sex offender notification, which is not viewed by the courts as the imposition of a criminal penalty. In determining whether to impose an order and for how long, the court will need to consider multiple factors. While the existence of a sex offender notification requirement would be relevant, other factors may also be relevant. The precise requirements of such an order may differ depending on the circumstances. As such, it would not be appropriate to determine a minimum period with reference to sex offences notifications, given that they are different and complementary processes.

However, the Deputy makes an important point. While I make a factual differentiation between the civil and criminal, it is particularly important that the interaction between civil and criminal orders be effective. This has to be about the victim's journey. As such, how the orders work and interlink is important.

Further refinements may be made in the Seanad. I am particularly conscious of the importance of ensuring that all parties, including local gardaí, are aware of the making of an order. While I am not in a position to support the Deputy's amendment for the reasons I have outlined, including the technical legal reasons, we will tease through this further in the Seanad. I have indicated our likelihood of reverting to the Dáil on other matters.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, is the Minister indicating that he is likely to revert to the Dáil on this particular matter or on the Bill in general, in which respect he has given an indication? I flagged this issue on Committee Stage with the then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee. She gave an assurance to revert to the House after giving full consideration to the matter.

The Minister, Deputy Harris, knows where I am coming from on this matter. I do not want the victims to have to go through a second or third legal process and to be retraumatised. In a perverse way, we are effectively giving the offender a form of leverage through this order. If it is a voluntary order, it cannot be appealed. If it is not voluntary and is applied by the court, it will be appealed. This places undue pressure on the victim, and I would like it taken out of the system. That is why I ask the Minister to consider this matter in the Seanad and to revert to us on it.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am indicating that we intend to look further at how we can refine the civil and criminal interactions, as we discussed earlier in the Seanad. I do not want to pre-empt those considerations but it is what we intend to do. Everything we are doing with this legislation, in other legislation we are bringing forward and everything we do under the zero tolerance strategy for domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is about supporting the victim and the victim's journey. There are a number of ways to go about that. There are civil levers and criminal levers. As I tried to outline in my response to the Deputy's amendment, we are looking at how we can support the victim in every way and I would hate it to be interpreted in any other way. How the civil and criminal interact is valid and important and we will look further in Seanad Éireann at how we can refine it.