Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)

The reason for the first alternative is to give discretion. For example, if someone worked in a laboratory and had some connection with some material that was subsequently transported or used under the Act, the judge would be able to impose a lesser sentence or fine even if the person was in some way connected. This provision gives the judge discretion. Section 8 contains a presumption relating to conduct referred to in section 2(2):

In proceedings for an offence under this Act, where a person has stockpiled, acquired, possessed or retained or transferred to another person, or attempted to stockpile, acquire, possess or retain or transfer to another person, a microbial or other biological agent, or toxin (whatever its origin or method of production), of such a type and in such a quantity that it is reasonable to conclude that it has been developed or produced or is intended to be used for a hostile purpose—

(a) the agent or toxin is presumed to have been so developed or produced or to have been so intended, and

(b) the person is presumed to have known or been reckless as to whether or not it has been so developed or produced or was so intended

There is a doubt as to whether the person would have known and this gives the judge the discretion to be more lenient where there is a doubt whether the person knew.