Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

My concern in this area is particularly strong because the defence, as stated previously, in terms of humanitarian assistance or humanitarian action does not apply to this section. The defence in any proceedings only applies to offences under sections 6 to 8, inclusive, and does not apply to actions taken under this section. This not only concerns making a mistake. Is it regarded as being reckless if a person does not and cannot know people's ages? A mistake is if I misspeak when saying something I know to be true but say it incorrectly.

Let us consider the owner of a ship, or an actor such as a humanitarian worker or a human rights advocate on the ship, who rescues a family and engages with an enforcement officer in regard to them. If the person speaks about the ages or country of origin of those rescued and cannot be sure of the facts but states them anyway, would that be recklessness or would it not be? I am concerned about the situations of the enforcement officers. We are creating offences in how people engage with enforcement officers. In many cases, it will be human rights volunteers or humanitarian workers who engage with enforcement officers and they will not have the defence under section 9. That is why I want to ensure they would be afforded a defence and I will bring an amendment on Report Stage on this whereby they will, at least, have a defence of good faith rather than being considered within the context of recklessness. It is not mal-intent. Recklessness is when a person does not know if something is true. Persons concerned might be told that they should be able to tell if people do not have proper papers, for example, and reply that they do not know of or have evidence of the country of origin of these people beyond what they have been told and passed that information on. The smuggled person will have protections but I am concerned this is an area where human rights or humanitarian workers, or people who act as a good Samaritan in relation to a ship, become a point of engagement with an enforcement officer and find themselves in danger of committing an offence. I am concerned about the framing of this. I appreciate it is quite blunt to remove the reference to recklessness. A way around that would be the inclusion of "good faith". I note in section 9 humanitarian defence does not apply to these offences and that is why I am particularly concerned.