Seanad debates

Wednesday, 8 July 2009

Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent)

In general terms, mens rea , or the guilty mind, is one of the requirements before one is reached by the criminal law. As the Minister of State said, there are exceptions where one can have strict liability and so on, but in general terms, disregard to the intention of the party carrying out a certain action is not a great basis for establishing a criminal offence. That is certainly the case here.

We are probably dealing with one of those situations where we are at a disadvantage from not being able to view this kind of activity. It is unsatisfactory that we are being asked to take at face value the Minister of State's assurance that some wise and good people have told us that he should take this course of action. It is also unsatisfactory that we are being asked to take at face value his assurance that there are many people involved in shooting sports who agree with his course of action when what we would like to be able to do, as Senator Alex White eloquently said in his contribution, is to ask questions about that, to hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, why we should take this course of action and to interrogate those who advocate it as to their motivation and the case they make.

I am not ascribing any motivation to the other bodies the Minister of State cites as supporting this legislation, but it may well be the case that there are people involved in other types of gun sports activities who believe they will not be thanked if they do not support what the Minister is proposing and he might bring forward something even more draconian, which could except them. I am entitled to say that is a possible motivation. I am also entitled to say, and it would be irresponsible of me not to suggest, that it may be possible that there is a degree of competition as between certain organisations for resources and support. It is not unknown for one sporting body in this country to regard another sporting body or activity as being something of a rival. There are all sorts of reasons the Minister might enjoy support in this respect.

The Minister of State has said that a sport that involves using a gun or firing at targets at high speed if one is moving is a problem in this respect because one might be simulating some sort of war game. I stress again, that approach is too sloppy, given the activity involved in paintball sport would also equip people for combat. That fact that those participating in that sport might not be using a real gun and that they are only firing pellets of paint seems to be beside the point when there might be real guns of equivalent weight that they could be using and through their taking part in paintball activity, they might acquire many skills of a combat kind. All the Minister of State is saying is that this activity involves a person running and shooting at the same time at targets that do not even resemble human or animal targets.

It seems that is an unnecessary incursion into citizens' rights to practise a particular skill. People run and people shoot as part of normal sporting activity. That they should do both at the same time need not concern us too much if it is properly regulated. If the Minister of State is willing to take the opportunity, my amendments offer him the chance to regulate the activity. We can establish conditions under which this running and shooting activity can take place. We can establish rules as to where the guns are maintained and what type of initiation is required before people are entitled to participate. We can do many things, and many things would be preferable to this crude and unfairly inclusive measure.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.