Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 15, line 11, to delete “or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular”.

I know there is concern and Senator Ward is rightly concerned about recklessness in relation to human life. I would support that. We should penalise those who take actions which are reckless in terms of the safety of human life. My concern with this phrasing is that potentially criminalises somebody. The section is outside sections 6, 7 and 8 but it potentially criminalises somebody who makes a statement but who cannot know whether it is true. For example, somebody could be engaging with an enforcement officer on a ship. That person may make a statement about persons they have rescued and who do they do not know. That person will be relying on the information they have been told. They will not have means to prove or disprove what they have heard from the people they have rescued. They will be in a situation where they have rescued persons and are relaying information in good faith. I am concerned that the "reckless" line is quite high in that it refers to "a material particular" that may be inaccurate or false. It is quite a high bar to expect such a person to be completely confident that material particulars of everything they say in the circumstances is accurate.

I gave the example of fishing boats that have engaged in search and rescue and those concerned are passing on information that they believe to be true. The word "reckless" should be removed, as it relates to the truth or falsity of a material particular. That material particular could be as simple as somebody's birth date, or the ages of persons who have been rescued and in respect of whom one is engaging with the enforcement officer. These are the kinds of things that people will get wrong and we should not create a situation whereby persons are in danger of having breached the Act because of that.

While I have suggested a deletion, perhaps a way to balance it in a more nuanced way is to insert a different bar around excepting where such statements are made in good faith. I have concerns at the moment as people have had, for example, their immigration applications dragged through the coals because they have made what seems to be a falsity in a material particular. They may have, for instance, stated a certain town, when it was a different town. They may have mistakenly stated a date of travel, when in fact it was a date before or after. We know how falsity in material particulars often has been a huge source of distress. I do not want a situation whereby those who are helping people are in situation where they are giving a material particular that might be technically false but that they do not do it in bad faith or with reason to deceive.