Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House and the opportunity to say a few words on the legislation. I am glad this discussion is taking place some months after a case that was a major media event. I compliment Senators Morrissey and Brennan on bringing forward the Bill. It is useful to have debate on the issue. Having looked at the proposed Government Bill, I prefer the definitions in it on first reading. However, the issue now is the need to debate the subject and come to a conclusion on it.

Speaking as somebody who has been burgled on many occasions, I always felt clear about what the law was. I believed that in defence of myself or my family, I would be entitled to use appropriate or enough force. Without going into the details of the recent highlighted case, I think the court saw it as, perhaps, two assaults and that this is what led to some confusion about the issue. In terms of rights, people have a right to defend themselves and their property.

I was at a meeting and did not hear the presentation on this Bill, but I think the definition in the Bill providing "that the act or acts alleged took place in or in the curtilage of a dwelling" is very loose. I agree we must have the definition, but it is not the defence I would want. The defence outlined in the meaning of the use of force in the proposed heads of Bill is closer to what I would like in terms of getting the balance between rights, the right to life and the right to protection of property.

People have an absolute right to protect themselves and their families. They also have a right to protect their property using appropriate and reasonable force. We need to get away from the extremes of both points of view. Some people say if somebody comes towards them, they will shoot, while other people feel no force at all should be used. In terms of the debate on the issue, people should be reassured that under the current legislation they are not proscribed from defending themselves. Rather, it may be that the burden of proof needs to be lessened. This is what I believe the Minister is trying to do in the proposed heads of Bill he has circulated. I would welcome that and believe it will assure people.

Having been burgled, even while in my house, and having discussed the issue with legal people afterwards, I am aware of the view that a person can use appropriate force to repel somebody from entering his house, on the basis of defence of home and homestead. Similarly, in rural Ireland where every house once had a shotgun, the rural hob lawyer held that if a person shot someone facing him, there was a possibility of mounting a defence, but if one shot someone in the back or when he or she was running away, a defence would not be so possible. These are the kind of guidelines we grew up with and people understood they could appropriately repel somebody making a forcible entry into their property and that they could use the defence that they were being attacked and felt their life was at risk. The phrase in the Minister's proposed heads of Bill, that the person "threatens violence", which while probably hard to prove, gives an example of what is involved here.

The defence is being in fear of one's life. In the high profile case mentioned, my view is that it was the fact the person was completely terrorised by what might happen to him that drove him to take a life. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of that situation. No doubt the psychological state of that person at that time must be understood, and anybody who has ever experienced a sense of violation — in my own case, even just minor burglaries — would understand that it is significant.

Sometimes people living on their own who go through such ordeals do not recover. Recently I was in a nursing home where somebody told me the reason she was there was that she had been burgled and could not sleep easy in her home. I listened on the radio during the week to another person in her late 70s on a related topic and she had moved from the house in which she had lived all her life into a nearby town out of fear of being on her own because she had been burgled. The Minister can see what we are getting at here. We must give people reassurance.

The Bill is timely and useful. The defence of life or property is what the Bill sets out to do, and I support that. People should be entitled to take whatever measures are necessary. The way that is being done in the Minister's proposal is a cleaner and more acceptable one, and to that extent, the people would want to know that we are dealing with this issue in a way that balances all the rights of people.

I have raised this question with civil liberties groups. I have asked them to articulate clearly what they believe is the law and what it should be, and what are the rights. Although people can huff and puff, when it comes down to it there are not that many differences when they speak of what they want to do and it is a matter of finding the means. The Bill is the start of the process and perhaps the Minister's proposal is the finish of it. I welcome the discussion and welcome the opportunity to speak to it. I wish the Government well in bringing forward its proposals.