Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

The reason it is proposed to delete subsection (5) is that it may be constitutionally dubious, first, because of the reversal of the burden of proof contemplated by the section in a criminal matter and, second, because of the recent High Court ruling in the bin tax case regarding the need to show that contempt was committed intentionally. The wording states that something may be treated for all purposes as if it were a contempt in the face of the court. Contempt of the court is contempt in the face of the court. What the legislation describes is not contempt in the face of the court, which means misbehaving in the courtroom. The legislation is trying to create something which does not exist and for this reason it should be deleted.