I too welcome the family of Jennifer Poole. The Ceann Comhairle has identified them individually. I specifically highlight Jason Poole, who has been steadfast in his support for this legislation. That has been hugely important to me in trying to advance this legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I also acknowledge the role played by all colleagues in this House. We are all aware of the background to Jennie's law and its origins in the brutal and senseless murder of a young woman. That was outlined during yesterday's debate. I really welcome the fact that Deputies from across the political spectrum support and have welcomed this legislation. I recognise that the role of Committee Stage is to allow colleagues to propose amendments they think would improve the legislation. I would not like Jennifer's family to think that what is happening here is in any way unorthodox. It is part of the legislative process. It is important that colleagues put forward proposals to test me and to see whether the legislation can be improved. We are looking at a group of amendments, Nos. 1 and 9 to 12, inclusive. Deputy Gannon's amendment, No. 1, asks me to include within the legislation a provision applying the legislation not only to convictions on indictment, that is, convictions in cases heard by the Central Criminal Court or the Circuit Criminal Court, but also to summary convictions. On page 5 of the Bill, the Oireachtas has set out a schedule of offences that should trigger the operation of Jennie's law. It obviously applies in cases of murder, manslaughter, rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault. All of these charges can only arise on indictment. Deputy Gannon's amendment has relevance to the proposed section 40A(11)(g) because some of the offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act can be tried summarily. Such offences include those under sections 3, 3A, 5, 10, 13 and 15 of that Act. Deputy Gannon wants to broaden the ambit of this legislation so that it does not just include convictions on indictment but also includes summary convictions. So that people are aware, summary convictions are convictions of a minor nature that take place in the Circuit Court. With the greatest of respect to Deputy Gannon, I am not going to accept these amendments. The inclusion of summary offences would be problematic. It would lead the District Court, a court of summary jurisdiction, to start delivering judgments in respect of summary convictions that have been put in place. I agree with Deputy Gannon that any form of violence against women or other offence, even if of a minor nature, is a warning signal and something people need to be very concerned about. However, I also have to recognise what I am doing in this legislation and what Jennie's law is about. It represents a new departure insofar as it gives a statutory power to the criminal courts in relation to delivering a judgment to be put on the register. That is not a practice in the courts at present. Sometimes, the sentencing judgment in a sentencing hearing will be printed up by the Central Criminal Court or the Circuit Criminal Court and then made available. As this is novel legislation, its parameters have been very carefully drawn. It is important for me to be cautious in how I introduce this. Let us see how it develops. It may be the case that I will be back here in a year saying that Deputy Gannon's proposals were a good idea and that the provisions should be extended. I would not rule out expanding the remit of the legislation in the future. However, I deliberately adopted a measured approach in designing its scope in order to ensure that it can be implemented and can withstand any potential legal challenge. We need to be aware that there will be legal challenges to this because just as there are people who are very strong in supporting this Bill and who want to see it on the Statute Book, there are others who will be vehemently opposed to it, particularly those who are convicted of the offences outlined in the legislation. Deputy Carthy has a number of amendments in this group by means of which he is seeking to include a section 2 offence, which is a more minor assault offence. I refer to amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive. In amendment No. 10, the Deputy is seeking to include reference to section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act in the context of an offence committed by somebody who contravenes a protection, safety or barring order. I am not going to accept that amendment because I want to start off with convictions on indictment in order that we can bed down the legislation and see how it operates. Deputy Gannon's amendment No. 12 seeks to include references to section 4 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 and also section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act. For the reasons already outlined, I do not propose to accept the amendment because I want to limit it to what is there at present, namely convictions on indictment, because that is the safest way to start with this legislation. As already stated, however, I am open to looking at this down the road. The great thing about legislation is that once it is put place, we can come back and improve it in the future. When I am starting off with something novel, however, I have to be cautious.

Sentiment score: -0.03

I thank colleagues for their contribution. I believe the legislation I presented is the correct way to go. I know colleagues are well-intentioned in what they are seeking to do but let us recall what was the motivation for this legislation. The motivation was the case of the murder of Jennifer Poole. Had the previous convictions of the person who murdered her been publicly available that would have had an impact upon her. This mechanism, the statutory scheme I am putting in place, would have covered his convictions. His convictions, which were serious convictions, would be covered by this. I do not believe it is appropriate to go down the route of including a whole other variety of convictions from the District Court. If we look at the convictions in this legislation that will trigger the mechanism for disclosure, we see that it includes a vast array of offences. As I said earlier on, obviously it covers murder, manslaughter, rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, but then it also covers non-fatal strangulation causing harm, non-fatal strangulation causing serious harm, assault causing harm, assault causing serious harm, threats to kill, harassment, endangerment, false imprisonment, coercive control and the spreading of intimate images. There is a whole variety of convictions there that will trigger the statutory scheme under this. I want to be respectful to Deputies Gannon and Carthy but if we go down the route of putting in District Court summary convictions this is going to become unmanageable. It is appropriate to leave this on indictable offences, convictions on indictment and then the discretionary mechanism is available to the court. I say with great respect to Deputies Gannon and Carthy that it is not a good idea to include a vast array of offences. It will undermine the effectiveness of the scheme.

Sentiment score: -0.11

I thank Deputies Carthy and Gannon for their amendments. Deputy Gannon's amendment seeks to cover a situation where the victim is deceased, so it is either a case of murder or manslaughter. In that instance, the provision as it is at present, in subsection (4), states, "In relation to subsection (2)(d), where the victim is deceased, it shall be at the discretion of the court as to whether a judgment is to be included in the Register." When it comes to a court case where somebody has been convicted of murder or manslaughter, obviously there will be an opportunity for a victim impact statement for the family members. Family will always be able to express their view. However, putting specifically into statute, as Deputy Gannon has suggested, that there has to be consultation with the family of the victim is difficult from the point of view of a court. The court is the one that is exercising its discretion as to whether the judgment should be published. Deputy Gannon's amendment states, "the court shall, after consultation with the family". It is unusual in legislation to talk about a court having consultation with the family. I know the purpose of it but there is a mechanism for the family to be heard. I think it would be inappropriate to include that in the Bill. As well as that, families are not always unified in their approach to a particular issue. We need to be much more specific in respect of what "family" means. Where the family of a deceased victim has views on whether a judgment should be included in the register, attention will of course be paid to those views by the judge, and that is something that the judge will be able to consider. I now turn to Deputy Carthy's amendments Nos. 2 and 4. These relate to the victim's consent, ensuring that it is freely and voluntarily given. They specify that the court must be satisfied that the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable them to make that decision. I am not going to accept these amendments either. We all agree that specialist domestic violence services are indispensable, and they are available. Colleagues will be aware that I provide a huge amount of funding to Cuan, which in turn provides it to those agencies. It is important to point out that these organisations make a valuable contribution. However, that recognition does not mean that every aspect of their work should be written into legislation. The amendments proposed raise significant practical concerns. It is simply not clear how a court could determine whether a victim had received "sufficient information and access to appropriate supports", nor is there an objective standard for what constitutes informed and safe decision-making. I understand the intentions but I think the language is too vague and subjective and would create uncertainty rather than the clarity that we all want.

Sentiment score: -0.01

I thank Deputy Carthy for putting down this amendment. I will start by disagreeing with him, however. I disagree with him when he says that the bar is incredibly high for the triggering of this statutory scheme. That is not correct. If the Deputy looks at the legislation, he will see 17 offences will trigger the scheme. Seventeen pieces of legislation or 17 convictions that will trigger it. These are convictions that are happening in Circuit Criminal Courts, and, to a lesser extent, Central Criminal Courts, on a continuous basis. It is not correct to say that the bar is incredibly high. The issue here is that if somebody receives one of these convictions, and the scheme is triggered and the judgment is published on the register, if that person gets a term of imprisonment, they cannot apply for it to be removed. The default position is that the judgment stays on the register. There is nothing in the scheme to remove the judgment from the register. The only way that the scheme affects that is that it allows a person, three years after they have been released from prison, to bring an application to have their name removed. That means that they have to go into open court and bring the application. They have to satisfy a judge that it is appropriate that they be removed. It may be the case that the judge will refuse the relief that they are seeking. In order to do that, they will have to set out some convincing evidence to the court that will satisfy it that it believes this person is no longer the threat that resulted in them being put on the register in the first place. What Deputy Carthy's amendment proposes is that we say that they cannot bring the application until five years. In practical terms, the court will have to be satisfied in any event, based on evidence that is put before it, that the person is no longer a threat. I know it is not something we are discussing here, and others mentioned this when legislation was mooted, but I have to give consideration to the possibility of rehabilitation. I know that is not something that is relevant in very many cases but I have to give consideration, as Minister, to the possibility of rehabilitation. I have to have regard for proportionality in the context of this Bill. This is new legislation. I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register. It allows that to be done either three years after he is released from prison or, if he is not imprisoned, three years after the conviction. To be absolutely clear, the expiry of the three-year period does not entitle a person to get off the register. Most people will stay on this indefinitely. The only time a person can get off it is if they bring an application which is successful. What happens at present is that I am allowing them, after three years, to make an application. The final decision, and the responsibility for ensuring it is the right one, rests with the court.

Sentiment score: -0.04

I thank colleagues for their contributions. As Deputies know, I have no difficulty accepting amendments from colleagues in this House if I believe they are correct and beneficial to the legislation. I have done it before and will do it again. I hear what Deputy Kelly says but collegiality does not come into it. We can be very collegial but when it comes to legislation, I cannot just decide that I want to be friendly with people in the House and, so, I will accept the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.29

I know, but collegiality is not a reason to accept an amendment.

Sentiment score: -0.42

Deputy McAuliffe mentioned something. There was a difficult passage between me getting into office and me introducing this legislation into the Houses of the Oireachtas-----

Sentiment score: -0.18

-----and it involved getting a lot of different views and advices. I remember a lot of coverage a year ago where lots of groups were opposed to this and it was all about the issues that could arise in respect of it. I have managed to get a balancing area - a landing area - that has the support of the House, which is the most significant thing, and has also enabled me to get advice from the Attorney General telling me that we can proceed with this. As Deputy McAuliffe mentioned a few moments ago, what I do not want to do is find that, when a judge is deciding whether to add somebody’s judgment to the register, they say that the person will not be able to bring an application for five years after their conviction or after they are released. It is a question of balancing it. The most important thing is for us to get this up and running and it to be effective. As Deputy McAuliffe said, it would reduce its effectiveness if it was the case that it was moved out to five years after release from prison. You could have been in prison for ten years and then you would have to wait for five years. On Deputy Gannon’s comments, the point I was making about rehabilitation was that going on the register was obviously not a form of punishment, but we have to recognise that an individual may be reformed and may have changed from the person they were when they committed the offence that led to them being put on the register. If a court was satisfied that the person had gone through treatment and reformed themselves - maybe there were major addiction issues or other issues in their lives that they had overcome and there was evidence to a court to suggest that the threat that had been there when they were put on the register was no longer there – that is a factor that I have to give some recognition to - not a huge amount, but some. It is important in terms of balancing the conflicting interests in the legislation.

Sentiment score: 0.04