Results 8,661-8,680 of 18,761 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: I express my gratitude to Senator Tuffy for tabling the amendments. On reflection and reconsidering the issues that arose in respect of Opposition amendments tabled on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil, it is appropriate to publish the text of the Schedule. With regard to the differences between amendments Nos. 21 and 22, I am not certain they are totally identical. I will give the...

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: This amendment deals with a situation where the Director of Public Prosecutions withdraws proceedings with liberty to re-enter. The amendment would amend the subsection to provide that the proceedings be withdrawn "and the court shall, unless it sees sufficient to the contrary, give, liberty to re-enter". The Office of the Attorney General advised that the proposed wording is too...

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: I did not hear any advice from the Attorney General different from what was stated in the Dáil on that matter.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: This is a drafting amendment. The phrase "Act of 2003" is uncertain and "European Arrest Warrant Act 2003" should be substituted.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: I am advised the court has inherent jurisdiction and therefore it will be surplus and perhaps counterproductive to provide for it in the Bill.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: One of the great aspects of having a computerised statute book is that someone such as Senator Cummins can stand up and assert with confidence that the phrase ne bis in idem does not appear anywhere else in the statute book. Ten years ago he would have been brave to state it but one can make such statements with far more confidence. I see the point the Senator makes. However, if we are to...

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: As the Senator implies, paragraph (a) of section 31(1) provides that the Minister can postpone the making of a surrender order until the ICC has determined any challenge to the admissibility of a case or to its jurisdiction. The proposed amendment will have the effect of altering the wording of the first two lines of section 31(1). The result would be an explicit reference to the Minister...

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: One of the articles in today's newspapers made the point that it is not possible to be slightly ethical or slightly pregnant. I am totally satisfied for the time being, if I can put it that way. If any doubt enters my mind, I will reconsider it on Report Stage.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: Section 35 applies to a person who is already serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention in the State and is also subject to a surrender order pursuant to a request from the International Criminal Court. The surrender order may include conditions in respect of the return of the person concerned into the custody of the State following the completion of the ICC proceedings. The amendment...

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: I will consider it to ascertain if anything in the ordinary domestic law of transfer could be adapted to fit the situation mentioned.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: The amendment proposes to insert a new subsection (5) in section 38. The existing subsections (4) to (10) of that section provide that the High Court may issue a freezing order prohibiting any person from dealing with the property of the person to whom the request relates, provided that the High Court is satisfied that the ICC has or is likely to impose a fine, forfeiture or reparation order...

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: The amendment proposes to insert an additional wording in section 40(9). Subsection (9) already provides that if at any time after the making of the enforcement order it is reported to the High Court that any sum payable under the ICC order remains unpaid, the court may order the imprisonment of the person to whom the ICC order relates. The amendment proposes that the provision will only...

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: Under the other legislation, we are satisfied that the difficulty to which the Senator refers does not arise. I will reconsider the matter between now and Report Stage, although I do not believe a problem really exists.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: Having considered amendment No. 16 and the horrific notion that somebody's entire nail could be taken as a sample, I am given to believe Senator Henry's amendment No. 17 is a better one and I will therefore accept it. While the term "iris identification" does not have a clear meaning, I am disposed to accept it because I do not think it can do any harm in this legislation.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: The Senator is correct. When I noticed this issue, I realised I might end up reading a report in the newspaper that I was going to authorise doctors to remove people's nails. I may not have much of a sense of self-preservation but I would not like to have that put on the record.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: I am happy to accept this amendment.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: This is a very prescriptive amendment. A body that none of us knew about could be dug up in Ireland. We may not want it in Ireland and relatives might want to bury it elsewhere. The amendment would tie us down unduly.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: We revised section 14 in the Dáil to take this into account. The amendment is redundant at this stage.

Seanad: International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Committee Stage (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: This was discussed in the earlier debate.

Seanad: Family Law Cases (28 Sep 2006)

Michael McDowell: I welcome the opportunity to inform Senators of the progress being made in the area of reporting of general trends in family law cases. I know from the debate in this House and in the other House during the passage of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 that the subject of family law and the in camera rule is of great interest and import to Members of both Houses. I readily acknowledge...