Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator McDowell for his amendment. It is important to stress the co-operative and collegiate approach in which this legislation has been approached. I asked my officials to consider the amendment he proposed and the possibility of accepting it.As Senator McDowell has said, the policy is the same and what we are trying to achieve here is essentially the same. The advice I have been given is that it would be best practice to amend rather than repeal the section. I fully agree that legislation needs to be legible and that there needs to be clarity in what we are doing. People need to be able to read it and clearly understand what it is we are doing. The logic is to try to avoid changing subsections, as has been mentioned, and the numbering so that everyone is clear what has been changed. We want to avoid any confusion with references to subsections. This is the basis on which I would prefer to push the Government amendment. Perhaps strictly from a legal point of view there might not be problems, but in reference to documents issued administratively or in academic commentary a change in the numbering in this type of scenario might lead to confusion. The Senator says his approach is simpler but the advice I have been given is that by ensuring we do not change subsections, in particular subsection numbers, what is being changed and what we are referencing are clearer.

My understanding is that section 39 continues to apply after proceedings have ended and that case law on this has been confirmed. Courts tend to apply the public interest exception in respect of accused children. I believe the amendments put forward by the Senator are addressed in the Government amendment. The amendment inserts a new subsection (1A) after subsection (1). This disapplies the prohibition on publication or broadcasting where the proceedings concern the death of a child. This provision disapplies subsection (1) automatically, which means that the reference to the child victim who has died can be published without the need for the court order. However, there are two exceptions. The first is where it would lead to the identity of another child who was a witness or victim of an offence to which the proceedings relate. The second is where it would lead to the revelation of the identity of a child accused in respect of the proceedings, contrary to section 93 of the Act. That section protects the identity of child offenders or a child accused of a criminal offence. As I have said, my understanding is that section 93 continues to apply after proceedings have ended. I believe the amendments put forward by the Senator are addressed in the Government amendment. Again, I am happy to hear a response on that.