David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I may have been inadvertently discourteous because I am the only one not to welcome the Minister to the House but it is such a formula. We always welcome all Ministers to the House. I also would like to pay tribute to the various organisations that have so effectively briefed us, which my colleagues also did but I neglected to do so.

I thank the Minister for her temperate and considered approach to the matter. I thank her for showing a desire to co-operate with this House to improve the legislation. She asked whether the amendments will be effective. She raised reasonable doubt about some aspects, for example, the question of proving a situation in court. If it is just hearsay or if it is just the supposed victim of violence saying, "He said this to me" or "He threatened violence" then it is a judgment call. There is no absolute mechanism of proof in that situation. I am not sure if we want to leave that in but, again, it is a matter for the Minister to consider.

She also asked whether the amendments are acceptable to victims. I think they pretty certainly are because these amendments were essentially suggested by the organisations that represent victims. It is fairly unarguable that the victims would support these amendments.

In terms of the definition, I have made the point that it is difficult to be exhaustive. On the other hand, the interpretation section lists definitions for the court, a dependent person, an emergency barring order, the full age, an interim barring order, the Minister, the prohibited degree of relationship, a protection order, a respondent, a safety order, a spouse and welfare. It seems a little bit odd when one defines all of these things that appear fairly obvious to the ordinary person on the street that we baulk at defining what are the central elements of the legislation.

The Istanbul Convention has been mentioned. I would like to put on record Article 33 of the Istanbul Convention which reads, "Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of seriously impairing a person's psychological integrity through coercion or threats is criminalised." The gloss that I got on this matter is that the proposed events of controlling or coercive behaviour drafted in similar terms in the corresponding UK legislation, in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, would capture the coercive and controlling aspect of the behaviour described in the Article. According to my advice, the existing defence of harassment under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, as amended, does not capture the controlling or coercion aspect. The Bill presents an opportunity to advance the ratification of the Istanbul Convention by inserting an offence that captures exactly the sort of behaviour identified in the Article.

I would like to refer to a case, and I already did so without naming Natalie Hammond and her partner, Mr. Hemming. I would like to expand on the kind of things that he did. I have already instanced in another case that the heating was switched on and taps were left running. Mr. Hemming refused to put her name on the deeds of their house, which goes directly to the situation referred to by Senator Murnane O'Connor. I am very glad that the Minister has agreed to consider this matter. It does seem wrong that children in this situation simply by a technicality, and one in which there is clear evidence that the partner or whatever one wants to call him, and it is usually a him, refused to put a name on the deeds. That fact let him out of the situation. He also monitored her mail, scrutinised her bank statements and tampered with her phone. That is pretty ghastly behaviour. Unsurprisingly, the judge at the trial described Mr. Hemming as overbearing, controlling and jealous.

Senator Bacik referred to a study of 358 domestic homicide reviews conducted by Dr. Jane Monckton-Smith that showed control was seen in 92% of domestic killings. That proves how important the question of control and coercion is. It is not just the battering. The control is part of the environment that facilitates the battering and it is almost always present. Control is something that must be addressed. The study showed there was obsession in 94% of cases and isolation from family and friends in 78% of cases. The following statement made by Dr. Monckton-Smith must be taken into consideration by this House. She said that the British Government brought in legislation, "because coercive control is really dangerous to women and children, not just because it’s unpleasant." It is not just something that is nasty and we say, "Oh God, that is dreadful." It is actually dangerous to women. I am very glad that the Minister has agreed to consider these situations and to come back to us on Report Stage and shows the potential for a good day's work in the Seanad.