Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the considerable work done by the Independent Senators, including Senator McDowell, and Deputy Jim O'Callaghan in rectifying what is a patently unjust situation arising out of the court's interpretation. I thank the Minister for not standing on ceremony. She has a sense of urgency about rectifying this situation for families who have experienced great hurt as a consequence of it, although there was no other conclusion that could have been arrived at by the judges deliberating on this matter. In doing their job and making such a strict and literal interpretation, we have unfortunately arrived at a situation where it is possible that justice for child victims is not seen to be done. It is urgent that we address this issue. The section of the Children Act 2001 was clearly about ensuring that children would not be forever identified with the crime perpetrated against them or to which they were witnesses. In so doing, I am confident that the view of legislators was towards child protection. It is important that, as we deliberate on this Bill, we continue in that mindset. This is about child protection at all times. In addressing what is a narrow set of circumstances and interpretation, it is important that we not have many unintended consequences flowing from the Bill.

The controversy arises around the child who has died. No one would attest to there being anything controversial as regards the living child. People understand that a child has a life to live and deserves his or her anonymity. However, we need to allow the identities of children who are deceased because of the most unspeakable of crimes to be published. It is the right of parents and families to speak of their children and to remember all that was lovely about them. We could have arrived at a situation where families' victim impact statements or their statements on the steps of the court following the conclusion of a trial could not be reproduced in the media. Families would not get to bring to life all that was good, lovely and to be remembered about their loved ones. It is part of their mourning and memorialisation and part of keeping the memory of their children alive.

Our adversarial judicial system is correct and I stand over it, having been in it many a time on the side of both the prosecution and defence, but we can sometimes end up with a defence narrative that is subsequently accused of being exaggerated or one-sided. We have seen sordid details of the deceased coming out as the narrative builds on behalf of the defendant. It is important that we have a right of reply and that the record is put straight. The tenderness and humanity of the deceased needs to be brought out subsequently. The media have a role to play in telling the victim's story following the conclusion of a trial, as we have seen in the past number of years, including in particular notorious cases. Parents have the right to reclaim the identity of their child following the conclusion of a trial and to speak freely.

It is important that adults who were victims of crimes as children get the opportunity to have the right to waive their anonymity. We will see that being addressed in the Government's amendments. Although the people in question were children at the material time of the offences perpetrated against them, for example, sexual abuse, they are entitled to waive that anonymity.

We see through a different lens when we read the section now. Previously, I would have seen nothing wrong with it, but then the case came through and I now see it differently.What I do see in the section now is that all of the power sits with the court whereas I believe victims should have a say in whether they have a right to lift that anonymity. It is about the court. It is important that the locus of the right to waive stays with the victims although they are now informed and well advised adults. It is important that we do this.

I very much support the idea that child perpetrators are protected, that their anonymity is always protected and that there are not unintended consequences arising out of the Bill that affects this. If we are going to have a restorative justice model and rehabilitation it is important that they get to start again.

I thank the Minister for her approach to this issue. It has been great. I thank her for all the hard work. We could have had to wait for the Supreme Court and for the Bill to be struck down but, thankfully, we did not. That we had it ready to go is a fine part of our Legislature. It is something to be proud of. I thank the Minister.