Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

If all matters are dealt with in the form of a single question at 9 p.m., that is my definition of a guillotine. I am not going to get involved in semantics.

I assure Senator Bacik that I am genuinely inquisitive as to why it is the case that in section 22 a relevant person is defined as somebody who has:

(a) a mental or intellectual disability, or

(b) a mental illness,

which is of such a nature or degree as to severely restrict the ability to guard himself or herself against serious exploitation.

In that case, a person in authority who engages in sexual activity with such a person is given an entirely different defence from the one we were dealing with in the previous instance. Subsection (3) states:

It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he or she was reasonably mistaken that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was not a relevant person.

Subsection (4) states:

It shall not be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed consented to the sexual action of which the offence consisted.

Subsection (5) states:

The standard of proof required to prove that the defendant was reasonably mistaken that the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was not a relevant person shall be that applicable to civil proceedings.

That is a different way of approaching the same issue as to how it is going to be proven in the case-----