David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 8, to delete lines 27 to 33.

I support all of these amendments but amendment No. 21 is the amendment that Sinn Féin tabled. We want to ensure the limitation on two convictions being classified as spent is removed.

I referred earlier to someone who might have more than two convictions not being able to qualify for this. A number of separate convictions may be recorded for one event, particularly when considered under the provision in section 2(2)(e) that only two convictions can be considered spent for any one individual. The Irish Penal Reform Trust pointed in its submission that the operation of the system of prosecution of offences in Ireland means that often one act may constitute a number of different offences and, furthermore, a number of different but connected charges may be brought forward with regard to the same incident and the example was given of a public order and criminal damage offence, or driving without tax and other road traffic offences.

The principle that any person who has demonstrated his or her good behaviour and character by the completion of a rehabilitation period should benefit from the proposed spent conviction regime is at the heart of the Bill before the House. Anyone seeking to benefit from the scheme on more than two occasions would have qualified through lengthy rehabilitation periods on each occasion. The IPRT sees no reason why in such exceptional circumstances an individual should not be able to benefit from the Bill on a third or subsequent occasion, given that previous convictions will have been taken into account at the point of sentence.

The trust gives a human example, which is always the best way to give us a flavour of what sort of situations can arise. It outlines how more than 30 years ago, when Conor was just over 18 years of age, he reversed into another car in the carpark of a local disco as he was leaving a dance. He was uninsured and did not remain at the scene. The damage was minor, he broke his rear lens and damaged the wing of the other person's car. He fully compensated the other person but at court he was convicted on three charges: section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, failure to stop at the scene of an accident - three months disqualification; section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, dangerous driving - the licence was endorsed; and section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, no insurance - the licence was endorsed. He has only been in court once, as a defendant on this issue. He said himself that because he had only one court appearance, albeit with three charges, he is being treated less favourably than someone who committed three separate offences. He would be delighted if there was some extra recognition for someone who only had one court appearance or transgression in their entire lifetime. Today he is a working PAYE employee of a large company and contributes to the local community through his work for the local group water scheme and other local bodies. He is still, however, seen as a criminal as this Bill stands and that depresses him.

That is a human example and it makes sense. This is someone who was a victim of the fact that because of the legislation and the criminal act that covered the circumstances under which he found himself, there happened to be three separate convictions arising from just one incident. He cannot have all of those convictions expunged if the Bill goes through. It demonstrates the conservatism of the Bill and the technical issues that were not taken into account.