Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, line 44, after "on" to insert the following:

"the person between the commission of the offence and the death of the person and on".

The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure every relevant aspect of the victim impact statement would be covered and that no further flaws or unforeseen gaps would emerge in the provision. I propose the new section 5(3)(b)(iv) would be altered to expand the reference to the type of evidence which may be given. This is really about the person in respect of whom the offence is committed. Where he or she has died as a result of the offence, the legislation provides that "a family member of the person may give evidence as to the effect of the offence concerned on the family members of the person who has died".

We have identified a gap in that there may be a time lag involved. Such a situation could occur in tragic cases in which the person was initially assaulted and subsequently died as a result of the injuries received in the original assault. Therefore, there may be a time lapse between the initial assault or offence and death. We contend that in the event of such a case there should be an extra line in the legislation dealing not only with the effect of the offence concerned on the family members of the person who has died but also on that person between the commission of the offence and the death of that person.

Perhaps we should have added the phrase "where relevant" because this may not be relevant in all cases. However, it may be relevant in a manslaughter case in which a person is assaulted outside a late night chipper or bar and subsequently dies some weeks or months later. By the time the case comes to trial the family members may give the victim impact statement. However, rather than be confined to giving evidence on the effect of the assault on them, they should be able to give evidence on the effect the crime has had on their deceased relative. Such a person may have been in a coma for some weeks or months and perhaps he or she suffered injuries which shortened his or her life to the extent that the trial ended up as a trial of homicide. It may not be a homicide trial because in some cases people are not convicted of homicide offences, even where a person has died as a result of the offence. The Minister may be aware of cases in which a person is convicted of violent disorder but in which a person has died as a result of the offence. However, for reasons of evidence the person accused of the offence may only be convicted of violent disorder or other related offences. In such a case the family members may wish to give evidence which is broader than evidence about the affect of the offence on them. They may wish to give evidence about the effect on their deceased relative also. The Minister may indicate this is not necessary and that it is already covered by implication. However, we have seen from the current provision in section 5 of the 1993 Act that it is important to be clear about exactly what family members may say.

The Minister will note that amendment No. 13 seeks to deal with the Court of Criminal Appeal judgment in the O'Donoghue case. Without pre-empting that——