Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the response the Minister of State has delivered on behalf of the Minister for Justice and take note of what he said. I received his comments as he was speaking, so if it is okay with him, I will pick through a few of the issues he raised and give him my response to those.

The Minister of State said "the Government appreciates the seriousness of the crime of stalking" but today, there is no crime of stalking. It does not actually exist. He then went on to describe in great detail what stalking actually is: "an intrusive pattern of behaviour where the perpetrator becomes so fixated on another person that ... [it would] cause any reasonable person to fear for his or her safety". Again, this is not actually in the law in this country. This is a definition I would agree with and I would certainly like to see it on the Statute Book. It seems strange, however, that the response from the Government and Minister for Justice is actually to refer to the crime of stalking which does not exist as we stand here today.

The Minister of State said that the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, known as Coco’s Law, was largely based on the criminal law recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission's report, to which I referred. There is an omission in that reply, particularly after we heard from Senator Sherlock, who spoke about Deputy Howlin's engagement on this law. I was not aware of that when I brought forward my legislation. I did not realise that stalking, as was recommended in that report, was actually in Coco's Law and was then pulled. That was said on the floor of the House. If that is the case and there is a commitment to do it later, that should be looked at. To say, however, that the Bill was largely based on that report and not refer to the big omission that the report also recommended having a stalking offence, which did not happen, is misleading. That should have been referred to.

The Minister of State said that court reports were examined and it was found that stalking was being successfully prosecuted. Examined by who? Who decides what successful prosecution looks like? I gave two examples today of two victims of stalking who had to go through the courts system to get justice. One case in particular really highlights how stalking clearly is not successfully prosecuted. Take the case of Eve McDowell, who in the end had to have her case prosecuted under aggravated burglary because harassment was not cutting the mustard, effectively, and aggravated burglary was going to allow the judicial system to give the perpetrator a stronger sentence. If there was ever evidence that stalking is not being successfully prosecuted, it is evident in that particular case. I am sure it is not unique.

If I might say, a very weak link was then drawn when the Minister of State said it is not the only time when we exchange language, if I can say that, where one word is not used but it can mean something else. He referred to kidnapping and compared it to false imprisonment. It is apples and oranges. I can see a link between kidnapping and false imprisonment. It is a similar experience. The intent of the perpetrator is the same, but that distinction is important here. The intent of the perpetrator, when you compare harassment to stalking, is quite different. I point very seriously to the intent of the stalkers in the cases of Eve McDowell and Una Ring, where the intent was to cause serious harm and, potentially, death. That is what both victims feared. That is the difference. When you compare kidnapping and false imprisonment, the difference is the intention and the outcome and, therefore, I think the comparison is weak and does not really serve a purpose in this debate.

The Minister of State then referred to a debate from when the then Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, was a Member of Dáil Éireann 24 years ago. Might I suggest we have moved on a lot in this country? Women's rights have advanced a lot in the past 24 years. We have a different attitude now to women's safety, safety on our streets and to listening to women. The very fact the Department saw fit to refer to a Dáil debate from 24 years ago highlights the problem.