Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Here in Ireland. One of the problems with that is that if one is broadening criminal jurisdiction to cover such cases, the question which automatically occurs to me is choice of venue. Under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976, there is provision for persons to opt for trial in Northern Ireland, for instance. In other words, there is the option of being tried in the place where the offence is alleged to have occurred. It seems strange to me that we do not appear to be giving any such right to opt to be tried in a foreign state under the Bill or to opt to have the matter investigated in a foreign state where the witnesses might be resident.

I fully support the Istanbul Convention and know exactly what it is about. I am concerned that any act of assault which involves harm, can include pain, loss of consciousness, a bruise or a mark will give rise to territorial jurisdiction in Ireland in respect of certain people. Is that a good idea? Will the Minister explain why he has cast the net so wide in respect of offences which are 1 million miles away from those covered by the Istanbul Convention?