Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 165: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the chronological order of the way in which the Mr. A case, unfolded; the relevant offices or Departments that were aware of the case; the personnel involved on behalf of the State in the preparation of the recent Supreme Court case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22094/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Tánaiste has told this House, on 29 November 2002 my Department was informed in writing by the Chief State Solicitor's Office of an application seeking judicial review to challenge certain provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935, (The "C.C." proceedings). An official promptly phoned the Chief State Solicitor's Office to ascertain whether they needed any response from the Department in relation to the application. The answer was in the negative. In January 2003, the Chief State Solicitor's Office repeated its undertaking to advise the Department of any development in the proceedings. No further communication was received in my Department from the Chief State Solicitor's Office or any other source concerning the "C.C." proceedings. Neither I nor my Department were notified of the hearing or outcome of the High Court case, which the State won, or the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

In response to the Supreme Court decision of 23 May 2006, I published the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 on 1 June 2006. It passed all stages in the Dáil and Seanad and was signed into law by the President on the following day.

Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 166: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the procedures which are in place when his Department becomes aware of a legal uncertainty or a likely potential problem with legislation relating to his Department; the measures that were taken when the first signs of legal uncertainty or potential problems in relation to section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 were noticed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22095/06]

Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 168: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the procedures that apply when the Law Reform Commission recommends that a law needs to be changed; the procedures which were adopted when the Law Reform Commission recommended in 1990 that those relating to persons accused of sex offences against young girls needed to be changed; the steps that followed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22097/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 166 and 168 together.

Whenever my Department becomes aware that legislation might be required, I would be informed and, depending on the issue, its importance and urgency, I would agree policy with officials from the Criminal or Civil Law Reform Divisions. Again, depending on the issue and its legal complexity, the Attorney General's Office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions may be consulted. In the case of Reports from the Law Reform Commission, their recommendations are examined in the Department and, where appropriate, are included in legislation. The criminal law measures in the 1990 Law Reform Commission Report on Child Sexual Abuse were examined in the context of the preparation of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993, which gave effect to the Commission's recommendations on the decriminalisation of homosexual acts and also complied with its recommendations not to change the law on incest or the liability of girls who engage in under-age sex. The recommendations on mistake as to age and the age of consent were not legislated for because of lack of public support for what would have decreased the protection from the law available to children against sexual abuse.

The questions on age were returned to in the Department's 1998 Discussion Paper on the Law on Sexual Offences. Views received on the questions addressed in the Paper disclosed no great public support for any changes on those issues. It is important to point out that the Commission's recommendation on a defence of mistake as to age was made on policy and not constitutional grounds.

The first occasion I became aware that there were potential problems with section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 was when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 23 May 2006. My response to the judgment is the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 which passed all stages in the Dáil and Seanad on 2 June 2006 and was signed into law by the President on the same day.

Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 167: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform where the responsibility rests with regard to the processing of the recent Mr. A Supreme Court Case and the notification to the relevant personnel of all matters relating; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22096/06]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 172: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if it is usual for him not to receive notification of Supreme Court actions pertaining to the constitutionality of legislation in operation within the State; if it is usual for him to be made aware of legal action pending or before the courts; if so, if such notification is limited to a particular type or class of action and in that case the type or classification which applies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22184/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 167 and 172 together.

There is no doubt that recent events have highlighted communications issues between my Department and the Offices of the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor. An examination of communications within the Office of the Attorney General took place some years ago that resulted in some administrative changes in that Office and as indicated by the Taoiseach to the Dáil yesterday a further examination by an official from the Department Of Finance is now due to take place. My Department will, of course, cooperate in every possible way with that examination. While communications and recording of correspondence within my own Department are being reviewed to see if they could be improved, I am satisfied that on this occasion procedures were carried out correctly.

As the Tánaiste has told this House, on 29 November 2002 my Department was informed in writing by the Chief State Solicitor's Office of an application seeking judicial review to challenge certain provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. (The "C.C." proceedings). An official promptly phoned the Chief State Solicitor's Office to ascertain whether they needed any response from the Department in relation to the application. The answer was in the negative. In January 2003, the Chief State Solicitor's Office repeated its undertaking to advise the Department of any development in the proceedings. No further communication was received in my Department from the Chief State Solicitor's Office or any other source concerning the "C.C." proceedings. Neither I nor my Department were notified of the hearing or outcome of the High Court case, which the State won, or the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

In response to the Supreme Court decision of 23 May 2006, I published the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 on 1 June 2006. It passed all stages in the Dáil and Seanad and was signed into law by the President on the following day. I would emphasise that even had we been aware of the impending Supreme Court judgment, nothing could have been done which would have prevented the application to the High Court which resulted in the temporary release of one convicted sex offender. No legislation, even if rushed through the Oireachtas the same day, could have influenced subsequent events. It would not in any case have been practicable to rush in pre-prepared legislation as it is simply not possible to anticipate the terms of a Supreme Court decision, let alone the decision itself.

Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 169: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of people who have been convicted under Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1935; the number of people currently serving prison sentence having been convicted under this Section of the Act; if in view of the recent Supreme Court ruling the perpetrator can be rearrested and retried under other sections or other Acts for their crime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22098/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have made enquiries with the Garda authorities and the statistics relating to the number of convictions recorded for an offence under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 for the years 2000 to 2006 to date are set out in the following table. Figures prior to the introduction of the computerised crime recording system are not readily available, and it would require a disproportionate expenditure of Garda time and resources to identify these convictions from manual records. I am further informed by the Garda authorities that following the decision of the Supreme Court on 2 June 2006, gardaí have arrested the man identified as Mr. A and he has been returned to prison. On 6 June, 2006 there were 14 persons serving a prison sentence for offences contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. Of these 14 cases, six were also serving sentences for other offences.