I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, line 24, to delete “convicted on indictment” and substitute “convicted, whether on indictment or summarily,”. I welcome Jennie's family. It is an honour for us to have you here. My amendment relates to section 1. This amendment is straightforward but important. As drafted, the Bill excludes convictions dealt with summarily in the District Court yet many domestic violence offences, including the offences of coercive control, assault causing harm and breaching a protection order, can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. Whether a case proceeds in one court or another should not determine whether a victim can benefit from the protections of this register. Women's Aid specifically highlighted this issue during pre-legislative scrutiny. This amendment seeks to address that gap.
Sentiment score: 0.07
I vehemently support this Bill, but we cannot ignore the fact that, as matters currently stand, there are cases involving coercive control, assault causing harm and breaches of protection orders that can come before the District Court and that can be prosecuted summarily or upon indictment. The despicable people who engage in such behaviour and who are found guilty in an Irish court will not feature on this register. Therefore, when the Minister talks about the safest way of advancing the legislation, I am obliged to ask for whom is it safest? Women's Aid has already told us that this is an omission from the Bill that will create exceptions whereby violent men will be excluded from appearing on registers. It is incumbent upon us to listen to Women's Aid. It would be safer still for the Minister to accept amendment No. 1, which seeks to add the offences to which I refer. In terms of amendment No. 11, which I neglected to speak to earlier, what we are talking about are behaviours such as stalking and harassment. It would be important for those to be included. I again encourage the Minister to accept amendment No.1 in order to include the offences to which I refer.
Sentiment score: -0.10
I will equally be supporting Deputy Carthy's amendments. My amendment seeks to recognise that, where a victim has tragically died, he or she can no longer express a view on whether a judgment should appear on the register. The Bill currently leaves that decision entirely to the court. Our amendment simply requires the court, where appropriate, to consult the victim's family before reaching that decision. It does not give families a veto, nor does it remove the court's discretion. It simply ensures that, in these most difficult cases, those closest to the victims have an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.
Sentiment score: -0.09
I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, lines 5 to 7, to delete all words from and including “it” in line 5 down to and including line 7 and substitute the following: “the court shall, after consultation with the family of the victim where appropriate, determine whether a judgment is to be included in the Register.”.
Sentiment score: -0.28
I had not intended to speak but I fully support Deputy Carthy's amendment. When the Minister mentioned the possibility of rehabilitation, it raised my antennae because I am somebody who fundamentally believes in rehabilitation. We talk about it in this House all the time. I do not believe going onto this register is the punishment. Going onto this register is to send a warning to any potential partner in the future, which is why the rehabilitation of the perpetrator is not to the fore of my concerns here at all. In fact, more to the point, a person who is seeking to remove themselves after three years and potentially not having a conversation about such horrific past behaviour seems like an attempt to deceive. I think three years is far too short. I do not think rehabilitation comes into this register. It is a completely separate issue and is an allowance for future deception. Five years is too short, to be honest, but three years certainly is.
Sentiment score: -0.10