Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, to delete lines 31 to 36, and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 8 and substitute the following: “ “14A.(1) The Minister may decline to appoint, or remove from office, a coroner or deputy coroner if he or she—

(a) is, or has been, convicted on indictment of an offence,

(b) is, or has been, convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty,

(c) is, or has been, sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence in respect of which he or she was convicted,

(d) has, or has had, a declaration made against him or her under section 819 of the Act of 2014 or is deemed to be subject to such a declaration by virtue of Chapter 5 of Part 14 of that Act, or

(e) (i) is subject to or has been subject to, or

(ii) is deemed, or has ever been deemed, to be subject to, a disqualification order within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 14 of the Act of 2014 whether by virtue of that Chapter or of any other provision of that Act.

(2) In subsection (1), “Act of 2014” means the Companies Act 2014.”.”.

This amendment relates to the eligibility for appointment to office of coroner or deputy coroner and, perhaps more importantly, to disqualification from office. It proposes to insert into the 1962 Act a new section 14A, which sets out a number of criteria which would allow a person to be disqualified from being appointed as a coroner or deputy coroner. Those criteria being convicted on indictment for an offence, being convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence in respect of which he or she was convicted, or having had declarations made under section 819 of the 2014 Act or Part 14 of the 2014 Act, which essentially relate to other issues.

I have two difficulties in this regard. We have had debates on this subject in this Chamber on a number of occasions. The mere fact that a person has been convicted of an offence does not mean they should never again be able to do certain things. If we are to champion the notion of rehabilitation in our criminal justice system, it ill behoves us to say that because somebody has done X, they may never again do Y. We must leave the door open for those people. I would much rather see the Minister given discretion to disqualify a person. During the appointments process, she should be able to decide that in light of all the circumstances, this is not a person she will appoint. A previous conviction, an indictable conviction, a term of imprisonment, a dishonesty offence, or whatever it might be, may be cited as the reason. I would have no difficulty with such criteria being weapons in the armoury of the Minister to keep somebody out of a coronial office if that is what she thinks appropriate.

I do not understand why we would tie the Minister's hands at this juncture in such a one-size-fits-all manner. We should not deem that there is no room for the Minister of the day to consider the circumstances of a conviction, the extent of the dishonesty or whatever the case might be. If an 18-year-old steals a Mars bar from a shop and gets convicted in the District Court for what is a summary, minor offence, this section provides that he or she can never become a coroner. I am not endorsing stealing Mars bars from shops, I am not saying theft is okay, and I am not saying dishonesty is okay; I am saying we have to leave room for people to have second chances. I am proposing to amend the proposed new section 14A, which provides that "a person shall not be eligible for appointment ...." so that it instead states that "the Minister may decline to appoint, or remove from office, a coroner or deputy, if he or she ...", and it then lists the criteria. This amendment is about rewording the new section 14A to move us from the mandatory to the discretionary. It is about putting our faith in the Minister of the day to be able to make that decision on behalf of the State as to whether someone is an appropriate person. It is not saying that any of these things are okay, because they are all serious matters.

When you put somebody into a quasi-judicial office, the fact that they have a dishonesty conviction, whether for stealing a Mars bar or something more serious, is definitely a mark against them, as is the fact that they might have been convicted of an indictable offence or any of those serious things. However, if it happened 20 years earlier, and since then that person has demonstrated the utmost good character and so on, the notion that we would now say there is no way and no basis on which he or she can be appointed is retrograde. I am suggesting that instead of saying that there is absolutely no way this can ever be done, the Minister can make this decision. I am also giving the future Minister the discretion to say that someone who has previously been convicted of dishonesty or an indictable offence, whatever it might be, will not be considered any further on that basis. There will be no repercussions for the Minister in those circumstances, but crucially the Minister will have the discretion to do that. I think we can trust members of the Government to make such a decision. They are vested with much more significant powers in reality. I do not see why we would tie future Ministers' hands to appoint somebody who might be good at a job because of a younger indiscretion.