Colette Kelleher (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. His engagement with us and all the organisations with which we are working closely and the genuineness he is bringing to progressing this important legislation is very welcome.

To come back to the issue of consistency, organisations working at the coalface report time and again that cases with similar facts have very different results. This is not a situation that we want to continue, which is why we want to be tight in the definition. It is very hard for judges to see what they do not know or understand, and there has been inconsistency. In 1999, the Law Society in Domestic Violence: A Case for Reform advocated for the introduction of either detailed statutory guidance or a list of criteria to be considered by the courts in determining whether to grant protective orders. The society stated:

There is considerable divergence among District Court judges in the exercise of their discretion ... The provision of detailed statutory criteria to guide judicial discretion is an approach adopted elsewhere in Family Law. The Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, Family Law Act, 1995 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 each set down clear and detailed criteria for consideration by the courts in the exercise of discretion under the legislation.

If there was not a problem with consistency, we would not be speaking about it. However, due to the nature of domestic violence, there is a lack of understanding. It is not in these parts where there is great knowledge and understanding, but it is not everywhere. Therefore, at this time we want to ensure that it is known and understood. The amendments in this grouping ensure that domestic violence is clear and understood. The list of factors to be taken into account by the court in deciding whether to make an order under the Domestic Violence Act are very clear and create an absolute understanding. This is about achieving culture change. It is so important. We are not just shifting words but also minds by the words in the legislation.

Of these grouped amendments, amendment No. 6 is the most logical and suitable option. Its subsections (1) and (2) set out an open list of factors. Its subsection (3) then defines "violence", including psychological violence and controlling behaviours. Finally, its subsection (4) requires reasons for decisions to be provided to the parties in writing. While there is a potential conflict with other definitions in the definition of coercive or controlling behaviour, that may be addressed on Report Stage.

There is precedent for such an approach in divorce law. I absolutely recommend the Law Society's submission. It is not just people like me who are coming from a social work background that support this amendment. Lawyers also support it. If the Law Society believes it is possible, I hope the Minister of State will give it careful consideration. We will be pressing this.