Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House, in particular given his former role as Chairman of the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. Senator Conway and I had the pleasure of serving on that committee with Deputy Stanton as Chairman. During that time, we prepared a report on domestic violence which made some key recommendations, and I am glad to see the Minister of State has it in his hand. Among the key recommendations was that there would be a specific definition of domestic violence and an offence of domestic violence. Senator Norris referred to the Law Society recommendation that there would be such a definition, and we are debating amendment No. 1 which provides for such a definition. We have all spoken at some length on this and I do not wish to waste time today. As we said the previous day, we would welcome the Minister of State's constructive engagement and that of the Minister, Deputy Flanagan.

On the previous day the then Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, said she would consult the Attorney General and Parliamentary Counsel on the issue of both the definition of domestic violence in amendment No. 1 and the proposed definitions of an offence of coercive or controlling behaviour in amendments Nos. 52 and 53. She said she had had some preliminary discussions with the Attorney General but would like to have time to examine the matter and come back on Report Stage. That was on 31 May. Will the Minister of State tell us if there has been any progress since then? Will the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, accept at least the spirit of these amendments and come back to us with a reworded version or an indication of whether the amendments will be reported on Report Stage?

I will not repeat the lengthy debate we had the previous day other than to say that in respect of amendment No. 1, I pointed out the need for a definition of domestic violence, which the Law Society has also recommended. SAFE Ireland and others have also called for it and I welcome their representatives to the Gallery. There has been a strong indication from the Law Society that the approach adopted in amendment No. 1 would be very much in line with the Istanbul Convention. The word it used was "required" under the Istanbul Convention.

In terms of amendments Nos. 52 and 53 and the proposed offence of coercive or controlling behaviour, I spoke at some length the previous day about the equivalent offence in the UK under the Serious Crime Act 2015. Although it is new legislation - it is only two years old - we have already seen quite a number of prosecutions and 59 convictions. The Minister of State is aware of the very recent article in The Guardianon 20 May which provided an overview of the operation of the provisions in the Serious Crime Act on coercive and controlling behaviour. It was a very accessible and well-written overview quoting some of the academic research on it. It is clear that it is possible, very feasible and practical to define an offence in such a way that it is effective. I am looking again at what the Tánaiste said the previous day. Her main concern was that any definitions or new offences we would introduce would be effective for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. It is a very valid concern. We need to look carefully at the wording. It is possible, particularly using the near neighbour example, that such an offence may be drafted.

Is there a need for such an offence? The Tánaiste addressed this in her speech and said she did not see any gap in existing law, in particular because of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. I take issue with that. I made a note the previous day that I wanted to respond to the Minister on it. I do not accept that existing Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person offences are sufficient to cover the gamut of domestic abuse behaviours, especially because that Act was not drafted or prepared with a view to covering violent or harassing behaviours in an intimate relationship setting. That is the key difference. That is why the changes have been made in the UK. It is why the Law Society is recommending we provide for separate offences. I used to defend under the provisions of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act in the criminal courts. They are drafted for the most part for offences of assault in a public setting, including, for example, harassment where there is stalking but it is not specific to a domestic setting. They are offences that are used routinely in domestic violence settings, particularly in the District Court. I accept that but they are not necessarily appropriate to those settings. The idea we would draft and prepare specific offences for an intimate relationship setting is now seen as a good idea and is best practice.

The Tánaiste also expressed concern about whether it would be possible to prosecute successfully for a specific offence of coercive or controlling behaviour. Looking at the overview of English practice since 2015, in many cases it is an offence charged alongside other offences related to domestic violence, but there has been at least one successful prosecution for a stand-alone charge. As gardaí and prosecutors become more familiar with an offence like this, we will see an increasingly effective use of it as a stand-alone offence. It may also be prosecuted alongside other offences. Has there been any progress since 31 May on accepting the principle of these important amendments which we are all seeking to push in one form or another?