Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am disappointed, however, that he will not take on board this amendment. Some of the arguments he advanced actually strengthen the case for our proposal. He acknowledged that this is a new departure in the law and that many of the cases involved are very sensitive. This proposal would provide an additional layer of safety for the persons involved. The Minister notes that it will be a criminal offence to breach the guidelines or the spirit of the legislation. For the people who are victimised by that breach, however, by way, for instance, of a media report which names people it should not or gives details that should not be given, any action in that regard may well be too late. Although we have a very responsible media in general in this country, we have seen how unscrupulous media outlets in other jurisdictions, not very far away, will pick up on the salacious details of these types of cases in an effort to sell newspapers. That is precisely what we are anxious to avoid.

I do not agree that the procedure outlined in our amendment would be over-cumbersome. I am aware of organisations which have an annual procedure whereby court reporters must apply for the relevant accreditation. There is also the question of the time a judge might have to spend in ascertaining whether persons sitting in the courtroom are bona fide journalists. An annual process of accreditation which furnishes journalists with a form of identification that can be presented for inspection would provide an easy and speedy means for the clerk or other official to verify their identity. I appreciate where the Minister is coming from on this issue and acknowledge the extent of his experience in this area. I remain of the view, however, that this provision would provide an additional safety valve, so to speak, in the context of this new departure in court proceedings.