Results 10,181-10,200 of 11,477 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I will add to Senator Regan's comments. Given the wording of section 11 as a whole, a difficulty arises with the use of the word "modify" in subsection (1). I accept Senator Regan's statement to the effect that his amendment No. 31 is closely linked with amendment No. 30. In respect of the provision generally, however, the Minister has given different legislation as a precedent for the...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 32: In page 10, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection: "(3) In particular, the Minister may by regulation provide for a centralised system of data collection and retention on sentences handed down in the District and Circuit Courts.". This amendment relates to a matter I raised on Second Stage. As the Minister indicated, this legislation is...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for providing an update, although he did not indicate when this project is likely to come to fruition. We have been awaiting some time for information relating to its outcome. I am aware that a number of pilot projects were conducted. Unfortunately, there have been many such projects in the field of criminal justice, for example, the drug treatment courts, etc., but we...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 33: In page 11, line 7, after "income" to insert the following: "and the amount and nature of the person's annual outgoings". The purpose of amendment No. 33 is to provide greater clarity in respect of the workings of section 12, which sets down the criteria by which a court will assess the financial circumstances of a person who has been convicted of an offence. Section...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: While I have not tabled an amendment to the section, I flag for Report Stage that section 13(3) reads as though, even after all the circumstances are taken into consideration and the court decides a level of fine that will not have a detrimental effect on the situation of the defendant and his or her dependants, the court may still impose a fine greater than one that is reasonable in the...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I wish to tease this out because it is an important point. I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a court or a district judge who is trying to reach a figure for a fine and considering the terms of section 13. I note that section 13(8) states this only applies where the court has discretion in determining the amount of the fine. Section 13(9) states: "otherwise appropriate fine" means...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As I am thinking on my feet somewhat, I apologise for not being a little more coherent but to clarify, one must have regard to the standard drafting principle that where an ambiguity arises when one is dealing with a criminal statute, it must be interpreted in favour of the accused. As the Minister noted, the context is that the purpose of the Bill is to deal with those persons who cannot...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The appropriate way to deal with this might be to delete the words "greater than" because the more I think about this the more I believe it would be open to challenge. A common law sentencing must be exercised in a reasonable manner. If a court is being told it can devise what would be an otherwise appropriate fine without regard to financial circumstances, when it would examine the...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill but given that it is now 4.15 p.m. and that we still have a considerable number of amendments with which to deal, it may not be possible to get through Report Stage.

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: We all would; we are all anxious to get it on the Statute Book sooner rather than later but we want to make sure it is effective legislation.

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 40: In page 13, lines 34 and 35, to delete subsection (8). This was raised in the Dáil and I also raised it on Second Stage. The purpose of this amendment is to delete the subsection which imposes a limit and states that it should apply only to fines greater than €100. Overall, we very much welcome this section and the power to pay fines in instalments. It will be...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: With respect, that is not an appropriate response. To state it would impose an undue burden on the Courts Service rather than refer to any principled reason for this limit does not seem to be an adequate answer. We may see courts' discretion being fettered because a judge will know a fine of less than €100 cannot be paid in instalments. We might reach a very unsatisfactory outcome where...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: Senator Regan raised a point I should have mentioned in response to the Minister's reference to road traffic cases. That conjures up a very different picture of somebody who, as Senator Regan said, owns a car and, therefore, has some means. In that situation, it may well be that most of the fines are more than €100. My experience of cases where fines are imposed are not in the road...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As I stated, I do not accept administrative expediency as a reason for imposing what I would describe as an arbitrary limit of €100 and for this reason, I will press the amendment. There does not appear to be any good reason for providing that the power to pay in instalments will apply only to fines of €100 or greater. This approach will lead to hardship and have the unfortunate outcome...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: A figure of €101 may appear nonsensical but under the wording of the section the instalment option will only apply to fines greater than €100. For this reason, a fine of €100 would not attract the power to pay in instalments. As I indicated during the previous debate on the Bill, leaving aside the larger point about the limit, the section should at least use the words "greater than or...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I have a query on section 16(1)(b). Section 16 amends the Act of 1983 and states it applies to a person who has attained the age of 16 years. Does this mean fines can still be imposed on those under 16, but if they default they will still be imprisoned because the new provisions in respect of community service will not apply? I am not trying to catch anyone out on this, but am not clear...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I am aware of that, which is why I am puzzled by the age of 16 being inserted here, which makes it appear a child between the ages of 16 and 18 may be subject to two parallel regimes. I am trying to ensure there is co-ordination across the legislation and there is no dual regime in place.

Seanad: Business of Seanad. (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I agree with completing Committee Stage now as there is not much left to be done.

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed). (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 58: In page 18, line 16, column 2, to delete "5 days" and substitute "2 days". These amendments try to do the same thing, namely, to change the link between the financial amount and the period of imprisonment. Although I did not get the opportunity to voice this on Second Stage, I have always felt strongly that five days imprisonment is a very severe penalty compared to...

Seanad: Fines Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed). (28 Apr 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The Minister said the periods of imprisonment in the table are maximum periods. However, this is not quite clear in section 17(a) which states the court "may make an order committing the person to prison for a term not exceeding the appropriate period of imprisonment specified in the Table". It seems to me that the term "appropriate period of imprisonment" implies that period is a set...