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

I dtús báire, there is a request from the Minister to make corrections of a typological nature to the Bill.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In respect of Seanad amendments Nos. 8, 18 and 33, and pursuant to Standing Order 196, I request the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to direct the Clerk to make a number of corrections of a typographical nature to the Bill.

Seanad amendment No. 8 inserts subsections (5), (6) and (7) into section 23 of the Bill. However, consequential renumbering of the existing subsections (5) to (12) has not been reflected and is required.

Two punctuation errors have been identified in Seanad amendments Nos. 18 and 33.

In Seanad amendment No. 18 in subsection (1B) being inserted by section 51, at the end of paragraph (g), "[comma] and" should be replaced by a full stop.

In Seanad amendment No. 33, at the end of the inserted paragraph 13A of the Schedule, the comma should be replaced by a full stop.

Also in Seanad amendment No. 18, text is inserted referring to "subsection (3)(b)" of section 46 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. There should be no reference to paragraph (b) here and the reference should be to "subsection (3)" only.

I respectfully request that the Clerk be directed to carry out these corrections. I can furnish colleagues with copies of the changes I have just requested.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 1, 6, 18 and 32 are related and may be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 6, 18 and 32 provide a mechanism for Ireland's co-operation with the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO. It is an independent EU body with responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes against the financial interests of the EU and participating member states. It commenced its operations in 2021.

While Ireland has not opted in to date, we have been clear that we fully support and wish to co-operate with EPPO. Legal difficulties arise in using existing international mutual legal assistance agreements as a basis for EPPO co-operation. Ireland has argued for the creation of an EU legal instrument to facilitate this but, in the absence of such an instrument, the Office of the Attorney General has advised changes to domestic legislation are required to allow requests for co-operation to be made directly by EPPO on a unilateral basis. These amendments, in essence, give effect to those changes.

The approach taken is to amend the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. A new Part 7B is being inserted. This makes general provision for co-operation with EPPO and then specifies, section by section, the modifications that will apply when dealing with EPPO requests. While specific technical provision is required for EPPO in respect of particular categories of requests, broadly such requests will be treated in the same way as if made by the relevant national authorities of member states.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 2 and 37 are related and may be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments provide for a change in the composition of the DNA database system oversight committee. The provision being repealed provided for a member of the committee to be appointed by the Data Protection Commission, DPC, which has raised concerns in respect of this provision and its compatibility with the requirements of the DPC to be completely independent in the performance of its tasks and exercise of its power. The repeal of section 1(5) will address this concern. In its place, provision is being made for the Minister, in appointing ordinary members, to have regard to the need for data protection expertise within the committee.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 3, 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments address an issue identified in a 2018 case where it was found that the Court of Appeal cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment on an adult who had been initially sentenced as a child to children's detention. Amendment No. 21 provides that the sentence in such cases will not preclude a sentence which could have been imposed at the court of trial if the person had reached the age of 18 at that time. This will allow for a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed at appeal stage.

By exception, where the appeal is by a person as an adult against an initial sentence for treason or murder as a child, the mandatory life sentence for such offences will not apply at appeal stage. Instead, the Court of Appeal may impose such sentence as it considers appropriate. This is justified, given the general principle that a mandatory life sentence for treason or murder does not apply to a child. The amendment will apply to any outstanding appeals that have yet to be heard and any appeals that have been heard but where final judgment has not been given.

Amendment No. 22 is similar in effect to amendment No. 22 but deals with appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, against the leniency of an initial sentence. A similar exception is provided in respect of an initial sentence on conviction for treason or murder and the same transition provisions are also provided.

Amendment No. 3 is a consequential change to the Long Title.

In essence, we are closing a gap in law as exposed by a court judgment. The DPP also asked us to consider the matter and close the gap.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 19, 24 to 28 inclusive, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38 and 40, are related and will be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are a number of technical and typographical amendments. They are grouped together for consideration, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle outlined. Amendment No. 7 reflects the change in name of what is now the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Amendment No. 11 is a transitional provision to ensure that medical evidence certificates signed prior to the changes made to section 25 of the 1997 Act coming into effect will remain valid and will not be affected.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 correct typographical errors which were identified in section 28. Amendment No. 26 addresses a minor drafting issue in the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 to clarify that in the relevant section both a fine and imprisonment may be imposed. Amendment No. 28 addresses a minor cross-referencing issue in the Garda Síochána Act 2005 arising from a subsequent amendment. A further set of amendments provide for consequential changes to a number of other enactments arising from the new non-fatal strangulation offences.

Sections 3A and 4A are being inserted into the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The effect of these amendments to is extend existing provisions which are currently applicable to the existing section 3, assault causing harm, and section 4, causing serious harm, offences, so that they will now also cover section 3A and-or section 4A offences, which is non-fatal strangulation.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 5 and 33 are related and will be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 33 provides for consequential amendments to the Broadcasting and Other Media Regulation Acts 2009 and 2022 arising from the new offences introduced under this Act. It follows the pattern in those Acts of scheduling matters that might be subject to regulation of online media and covers the new offences provided in this Bill related to stalking, harassment and non-fatal strangulation. It also covers the new anonymity provisions in relation to the harassment and stalking offences, and indeed the breaches of civil orders. The effect of this provision will be to allow the Online Safety Commissioner, working under Coimisiún na Mean, to develop online safety codes which require certain online platforms to minimise, at a systemic level, the availability of online content by which a person commits any of the offences that are covered. These codes may also set out standards that an online platform must follow in relation to user complaints relating to this type of conduct.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 8 to 10 inclusive, 13, and 15 to 17 inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments provide for further enhancements to the stalking and harassment measures in the Bill. Amendment Nos. 8 and 10 complement the provisions around non-contact orders which may be imposed as a result of a conviction for stalking and harassment offences. They will ensure that such orders are properly notified and provided in writing to the relevant parties, including the alleged victim and local gardaí. This facilitates the enforcement of the order and, of course, a potential prosecution for breach.

Amendment No. 9 provides for restrictions on the publication of the identity of alleged victims of harassment and stalking offences under section 10 of the 1997 Act. It provides that it is an offence to publish or broadcast information, photographs, depictions or representations of physical likeness which would likely lead to identification of the alleged victim. Harassment and stalking offences tend to involve a serious invasion of a person's privacy, and there is a high risk that publication of the victim’s identity may subject the victim to further distress as well as secondary or repeat victimisation.

Amendment No. 17 introduces a similar provision for cases involving the breach of a section 28 civil order. It places restrictions on the publication of the identity of both the complainant and the defendant in such cases. This mirrors the provision in place in relation to breaches of orders under the Domestic Violence Act 2018.

Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16 provide for the making of civil restraining orders under section 28 on an urgent basis. They allow for a short-term order to be made ex parte, that is, without notice to the respondent, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate risk to the safety and welfare of the applicant. An order made ex partewill be valid for up to eight days. This allows protection to be put in place immediately while placing the respondent on notice. Orders will be also be available where an application is made on notice but is not immediately determined. This allows the court to make a temporary order pending the determination of the application.

If we take all of these together, these orders will ensure that urgent relief is available where it is needed as victims may be provided with an immediate order safeguarding them from any ongoing behaviour as they await a final determination of their section 28 application. These provisions on the restriction of identification will also be an important safeguard for victims in these types of cases. The restrictions provided may be waived by the alleged victim, or may be disapplied by the court where it feels it is appropriate.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome these amendments. If the Minister recalls, they were something she promised in regard to the passage of the harassment Bill. In terms of a procedure, if there was an inclination for a victim to waiver anonymity, how would that be? Would they apply to the court to do that? Would the court make the decision on that? In terms of access to the court, is there any fast track or how would that apply to somebody who is under enormous pressure in an immediate sense? How would they get access to ensure they could get such a restraining order to be given by the court as quickly as possible?

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Sharon Loughran is a paediatric nurse who lives in Newry. She works with children from both sides of the community in terms of the work she does. This morning she woke up at 3 a.m. to see her car in an inferno and the side of her house melting as a result of a 12th July sectarian attack on her because she is a woman from the nationalist community who is involved in political activism and is trying to save her local hospital. I wanted to put it on the record of the Dáil because we have a very short period of time left.

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

Does this relate to the amendments, Deputy?

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will stop in two seconds but this is a horrendous act and it is important the political establishment allows for no tolerance in relation to these acts. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for her indulgence.

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

It took me a little while, so that was my indulgence.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was listening and just want to clarify a point. The victim can obviously waive their right to anonymity and that then applies to the person in question that there is not a restriction on naming who they are. Also if the victim is going directly to the judge-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it the decision of the person or do they have to indicate their willingness to waive anonymity to a court to make the decision?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As is the case generally, it is that they make their views known to the judge and the judge then makes that decision and allows that to apply. The person can obviously make that decision and it is not for the judge to apply that.

In terms of access to the court, if it is required on a quick basis, there is the ex parteapproach that An Garda Síochána can apply on their behalf and make sure that this happens as quickly as possible and that there is no delay. As for the eight days, we obviously have to give the other person the opportunity to come back and to give their side and to explain whether they believe it should be extended or not but there is that provision there to allow for it to be done ex parte.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, I acknowledge this issue was raised when we were processing Coco's Law. I appreciate it takes time but I am absolutely confident this will enhance that Bill.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We finally got there.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We got there, as is generally the case but it is a welcome addition for anybody who is in this situation.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Provision was made in section 14C(2) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 that where a person is accused of a sexual offence and the alleged adult victim is to give evidence, the court may direct that the accused may not personally cross-examine the witness unless the court is of the opinion that the interests of justice require it.

This amendment essentially broadens the scope of this protection to cover "relevant offences" within the meaning of the 1992 Act, which includes offences involving violence or the threat of violence, coercive control, forced marriage and certain other offences. It will also include the new stalking and harassment offences and breaches of civil orders under section 28 of this Bill.

Extending the scope of this provision will help safeguard more victims from intimidation, retaliation and re-victimisation in a courtroom setting. I am hopeful that providing this protection will encourage more victims to come forward.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment increases the maximum penalty for assault on gardaí and other peace officers from seven years to 12 years. We are all conscious of the dedication and commitment of our front-line workers and the risks they take in the course of their duties. Any police force, but an unarmed force in particular, depends on absolute respect for the safety of its officers.

We cannot accept any violence at any level. While such incidents are rare, there has, sadly, been an increase in them, and we as legislators must send a clear message that any such attacks are deplorable and will be dealt with robustly. I am under no illusions that legislation alone can be a solution to this problem, but a strong deterrent should be in place to reinforce the safety of those who put themselves in harm's way to protect the public, and to demonstrate our solidarity with them.

The penalty for section 3 assault causing harm is being increased from five years to ten years under this Bill. The increase to 12 years in the penalty of assault on a peace office under section 19 will maintain the existing relationship between the section 19 penalty and the section 3 penalty, reflecting the particular importance of protecting police and other front-line workers from aggression and violence in their roles.

I am conscious good arguments may be made that other categories of peace officers should be covered by this provision. However, I emphasise that the section 19 offence complements the already comprehensive provisions in place in respect of assault and that the increased ten-year maximum penalty for assault causing harm will in itself constitute an important protection and deterrent against violence for all members of our society. Members of the Garda Síochána, in particular, face unique challenges, and this section reflects that. I acknowledge the work of Senator Gallagher, the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, and the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Harris, in bringing forward this amendment.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody in the House would not be very concerned by the increase in violence aimed at members of An Garda Síochána that we can see on social media all the time. I am referring in particular to what new, young gardaí have to face. It is not always physical abuse. Some of the verbal abuse and harassment they endure is very worrying. I do not want to suggest a knee-jerk reaction. Increasing the penalties is not something anyone in the House would object to. Where there is a serious assault causing real harm, there has to be a significant penalty for it. There must be a different strategy to support young, new members of an Garda Síochána who face incredible intimidation on the streets, some of which we have seen on social media. I am interested in hearing the views of the Minister on this matter.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is right that this is not a panacea. This will not deal with or respond to all incidents. We need to try to support the Garda. Going back to our conversation last night, it is about making sure the Garda has the necessary resources, numbers and technology, particularly making sure gardaí have body-worn cameras. It has been shown in other jurisdictions where they have been introduced that they benefit the police when they arrive on the scene of an incident or crime in obtaining the first pieces of evidence or information and in protecting them. If people know they are being recorded, it modifies their behaviour. As the Deputy has just mentioned, we often see incidents put up on social media. The perpetrators put up what they want to show. What is important is that gardaí have the evidence and ability to record their version of events. People will be aware of the technology of the Garda and will know it has it. It will be able to go back 15 seconds to record an incident that might have happened to get the full picture to so as to protect gardaí. In other jurisdictions, people's behaviour has been modified because of this. This in itself will not change certain people's behaviour. That is where we hope the rest of the work under way, particularly with regard to younger people, will be effective. There has been a change in attitude towards An Garda Síochána. The level of respect has perhaps declined. I will not say there was fear but people respected a garda walking past them or a garda who issued a direction or questioned them. This is not always the case now. It is about engaging with younger people and making sure we invest in our youth justice strategy and divergent programme. It is about making sure we have gardaí on the beat in our communities and engaging with people so they become known to them and are part of the community. There are many ways in which we can address this. Body-worn cameras are really important in addressing what the Deputy mentioned, namely assaults and attacks on gardaí. The next Bill we will debate will progress this, and I hope we will have body cameras on gardaí as quickly as possible.

55. Section 36 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences):

Act 2001 is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3):

"(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), 10 years, or

(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2), five years, or both.".".

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Mental Health Review Board, MHRB, is a quasi-judicial body responsible for the review of the detention of patients in the Central Mental Hospital. Currently, paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 outlines the requirements of the membership of the board. There must be a chairperson and such number of ordinary members as determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Health. As it stands, the chairperson must have ten years' experience as a practising barrister or practising solicitor or be a judge or former judge. Should the chairperson be incapacitated or unavailable, there is, at present, no means to provide for a substitute. This presents a risk given the strict time limits applicable to such reviews.

This amendment will establish a deputy chairperson role for the board with the same qualification requirements as the chair and will require the deputy chair to act as chair where the chair is not present. This will ensure that the reviews due to take place will still be possible even if the chairperson is unavailable. Should it arise that both the chair and deputy chair are unavailable, which could happen, the Minister may appoint a suitably qualified individual to act temporarily. An amendment to Schedule 1 to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 is already in the Bill to this effect.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 34 and 39 are related and may be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments correct certain drafting and cross-referencing issues in the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 arising from the amending Act in this area, which was passed last year. I draw attention in particular to the amendments to subsections 77(e), (f), (j) and (k) of the Bill relating to applications to a judge. Under the 2011 Act, as amended, applications for data must be approved by a judge. Applications are made on anex partebasis, with the relevant agency present, such as An Garda Síochána. They must also be heard in private. This prevents a risk of any person disposing of evidence or otherwise frustrating any evidence.

There are four other sections of the Act that permit a superior officer to sign off an application for data in urgent cases. This would apply if there were immediate risks of data being destroyed or a risk to life, national security or a criminal investigation. The superior officer must apply to a judge within 72 hours of affirmation of an urgent order. The judge reviews the cases and assesses whether the order should have been made. This safeguard is a requirement of the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Act currently provides that an application to a judge for affirmation of an urgent order must be made on an ex partebasis but it does not state that the application must be heard in private. The amendments confirm that these applications must be heard in private. They will prevent any risk to the operation of these sensitive data applications and will ensure there are consistent rules throughout the Act for applications to a judge.

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

A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that Dáil Éireann has agreed to all the amendments made by Seanad Éireann to the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2022.