Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I want to speak briefly in support of this amendment. I declare an interest in that I have acted for the State in a number of cases involving a question of whether post-release matters are part of an offender's sentence or whether they are better characterised as civil orders consequent on conviction. Notably, with regard to the registration provisions under the Sex Offenders Act 2001, there have been a number of cases in which those were considered, one of which was Enright v. Ireland in which I appeared. In those cases it was considered, ultimately, that they were not such orders, that is, an order that somebody must notify the State of their movements subsequent to their release from a sentence of imprisonment imposed following conviction for a sex offence. That sort of restriction, registration or notification requirement is not characterised as being a penalty and therefore it is better akin to a civil order or an order consequent on conviction. The language used in subsection (3) is misleading in that something that seems to me to be similar in nature to the registration requirements in the Sex Offenders Act, or to matters of that nature, is referred to as part of the offender's sentencing. That is somewhat misleading and it could lead to problems. I support Senator Alex White's amendment. It is a constructive amendment in that it seeks to strengthen the power in the Bill. None of us is opposing the power of the court proposed in section 14 to impose this sort of post release restriction on a person's movement. We make this suggestion in a genuinely constructive way.