Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This amendment is misplaced. It misunderstands the importance of giving as many tools as possible to prosecutors. In making amendments to this Bill intended to ensure that the wrong people do not get caught up in prosecutions, there is a danger that we may end up making it more difficult for legitimate prosecutions to be undertaken. If it was only necessary for a person to know that "entry into, transit across or presence in the State is in breach of a specified provision", then, arguably, a simple statement that those being prosecuted did not know would be sufficient to avoid conviction or to mount a defence against prosecution. The inclusion of the phrase “a reasonable belief” is to counter a situation where people say they did not know. Even in situations where somebody does say that, it will still be open to a juror or decision-maker to take the position, that even though a defendant is claiming that he or she did not know, there are reasonable grounds, and reasons X, Y and Z, for believing that the person concerned should have known the relevant information.

There is a danger that we may go too far in this regard. I refer to the purpose of this amendment, which is to avoid a situation where the wrong person gets convicted of an offence under the Act. The existing wording is a tremendously important component. It is required to facilitate not just the prosecution but the conviction of people who should be convicted under this Act. If we remove this phrase there is then a danger that we may tie the hands of prosecutors in trying to get convictions.

The purpose of this section is to do with, "Provision [...] of fraudulent travel or identity document[s] for [the] purpose of assisting entry into, transit across, or presence in [the] State or [a] designated state". The people we are talking about here are not rescuers. They are not the members of our navy or good Samaritans who intervene. My understanding is that this section is targeted at people who are undertaking actions deliberately and with a view to facilitating people smuggling. I do not have a concern with the way the section is phrased now. I do not think that the kind of people that Senator Higgins is seeking to protect are in any way going to get caught up in this provision. Therefore, I do not think this amendment should be made.