Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, line 1, to delete “or has reasonable cause to believe”.

I will not spend long on this amendment, but I am concerned with the interpretation here. Section 8(1)(b) refers to a person who "knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such entry into, transit across or presence in the State is in breach of a specified provision". What was unclear regarding this section was the role of understanding of the laws of the state in the context of somebody entering, transiting across or becoming present in it. Is the meaning in this regard perhaps related to travel identity documents and their validity?

In many cases, where people are rescuing others who are drowning or in abandoned ships, there is not a reasonable mechanism to allow someone to be aware or know about the validity of a travel or identity document. The hard reality is that NGOs are rescuing people from the Mediterranean. Our navy was doing that before. The figures concerning the loss of life are stark. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, spoke about the substantial loss of life which has already occurred this year. NGOs intercepting a ship, abandoned boat or dinghy and taking the rescued people into port will not necessarily be in a position to know or to be sure whether the identity papers of the people being brought to safety are valid.

I am concerned that the "reasonable cause to believe" phrase could be interpreted in two ways. It could be framed as it being known that certain people are not accepted or that laws exist against accepting certain types of travel documents in respect of bringing people into the State. We have talked about NGOs. It should be borne in mind that individuals sometimes save the lives of others under the law of the sea. We have seen that happen in Calais and sometimes in seas closer to home. In circumstances where individuals or the crews of fishing boats have saved people, those rescuers may not know the law of the land where they come ashore. They also may not know and may not be able to find out the validity of a travel document.

I am, therefore, a little concerned about this wording. "Knows" is a sufficient bar. Those people undertaking acts they know are against the law should be prosecuted. The "reasonable cause to believe" standard, however, is one that I could see being used to aggressively prosecute people in respect of a situation where there could be a question of whether they may have reasonably suspected that someone's papers may not have been in order or that a certain country is tired of receiving immigrants. That could be the case in some European countries. There is a lot of interpretative space contained in the "reasonable cause" wording. It is sufficient to say that a person may be liable to prosecution if he or she "knows" and is aware of the law and committed an act knowingly and intentionally.