David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not sure where that came from. It certainly did not come from me. I am happy to accept any amendments that I can accept and if I am persuaded that they will not pose difficulties or that they are necessary.

Amendment No. 15 is to be inserted into section 13 of the Criminal Evidence Act. However, it is not exactly clear where it is supposed to go. The words "the relevant offence" do not appear in the section and if the text is inserted as "a relevant offence", it does not make any sense. It is not, therefore, clear as to what exactly this amendment should apply.

It may be that the Senators are seeking to extend the presumptive right to give evidence via live television link, which currently applies to children, to any person who is under 18 at the time of making his or her complaint. I can see merit in that proposal. However, there is a risk that it may result in persons of the same age and in the same circumstances being treated differently by the courts merely on the basis of the date on which a formal complaint was made.

While there are clear reasons to treat those who are children at the time they are giving evidence differently to adults, which has been upheld by the courts as proportionate, it is not at all certain that the same could be said for treating some adults differently to others depending on how early each person made a complaint. One has two adults and one is saying that one of them has to have video link because he or she made a complaint ten years ago while the other cannot have video link because he or she made a complaint two months ago. That is what the Senators are saying.

This could result in older adults being given greater protection than younger adults just because it took longer for one victim to come forward than another. It may also have the effect of putting pressure on a child victims to make a formal complaint at an earlier time than they are ready in order to avail of the enhanced rights. Senators should think about that for a minute. That is a serious point as well.

Amendment No. 34 seeks to extend provisions allowing video-recorded statements to be admissible in court to persons over the age of 18. As with amendment No. 15, I see merit in what is being proposed but this is a significant shift away from established practice. The protections are considered proportionate on the basis of the particular vulnerability of, and the need to safeguard, children. Extending this particular right to adults bears the risk of an unfair interference in the rights of an accused person to face his or her accuser and would need to be carefully examined from a constitutional perspective.

I also point out that the amendment is technically flawed in that it applies to any case in which this part applies. That language has been removed from the Criminal Evidence Act by this Bill in order to extend certain other provisions of the Act to victims of all offences. The amendment also fails to make consequential amendments to section 15 of the Criminal Evidence Act which would be required if this amendment was accepted. They are just technical issues.

As I have said, these amendments have merit and are worthy of consideration. However, as drafted, they would lead to inconsistent treatment of people in the same circumstances and would require careful consideration to avoid the risk of unintended consequences or unconstitutionality. There may be a need to re-examine the Criminal Evidence Act in a more comprehensive way to look at many of the points raised in this area during the progress of this Bill and I will certainly give a commitment to look into that.

For the reasons outlined and because of the technical flaws in the amendments, I am afraid I cannot accept them. The issue of video link concerns children and once people go over a certain age, they are no longer a child even though they might have made a complaint earlier on. There are serious issues around this and I again ask the Senators not to press the amendments.