Seanad debates

Tuesday, 20 May 2003

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill 2002: Committee Stage.

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(a) that a licensee has failed to take action requested of him or her under section 4(2)(b),".

The purpose of this amendment is to include the provision that, before a court can make a closure order, the licensee must have failed to take action requested of him or her under section 4(2)(b). This amendment is appropriate because, under the section as currently worded, a closure order could be made by the court without any default by the licensee. The licensee merely has to be the subject of the accusation of disorder or noise in the premises or in the vicinity, but there is no requirement to show that the person has actually failed to deal with or address the problem.

If a person's livelihood can be taken away, the person should be at fault in some way. As the section is currently worded, it would seem that the licensee, or the owner or occupier, could be completely blameless. The section could also be unconstitutional. For that reason, and the other reasons outlined, I am putting forward this saving clause.

Similar points were made by Senators Burke and Terry regarding the unfairness of the provisions whereby a food premises operator, for example, might simply be the victim, so to speak, of disorderly behaviour. That person should at the very least be notified of being at fault, and should have an opportunity to rectify the fault.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.