I echo what the Minister said about the support across the House for the domestic violence register. That is really important because the model that we have landed on has been able to attract support. It is important to say that many people had very significant concerns about the idea of a domestic violence register. In some cases, they were very well-meaning people, including those representing people in domestic violence cases. In other cases, they were people involved in the legal profession and people involved in civil society. I appreciate the unanimity that we have landed on in the House. It took some time to get here. In considering these amendments, it is worth understanding why we have landed on the model that we have. I take a moment to welcome the Poole family to the Chamber in such large numbers. They are incredibly welcome, particularly Jason who has been the driving force behind this all the way through. When Jason first came to us about this, he always spoke about the most serious crimes. It was important that was the focus of what we were trying to do from the very beginning because, as we know, Jennie was the subject of an offence at the most serious level. It is important to remember who Jennie was. Jennie was a 24-year-old mother, a wonderful mother to Zach and Nevaeh. She was a healthcare worker in our community. She was a much-loved member of her camogie team in Erin's Isle. In many ways, she represented the very best of our community. We all know what happened on 17 April 2021. I spoke about it yesterday. I certainly do not intend to speak about it today because that man has taken enough from the Poole family without my reliving it here today. There was so much hurt. The hurt centred on the fact that behind that tragedy, Jennie was not aware that her ex-partner had a previous conviction. Not only was she not aware but she did not even have a mechanism to find out that he had a previous conviction. That tragedy was further compounded because it was not until the court case that Jennie's family realised that conviction was there. In trying to pursue Jennie's law, as Jason eventually called it, he came to me with a list of ten different areas, some of which the Minister has moved on in terms of access rights for a parent or a partner who's involved in a murder and so on. On this specific issue, the idea of granting access, we always knew there would be problems in establishing a register, similar to the sex offenders register. I acknowledge the work of Senator Fiona O'Loughlin, whose original Bill used that type of model because that is where we first thought we could progress it. All the other issues around people's privacy and GDPR started to become the blockages as to why this could not be done. I acknowledge that under a different Minister the Department of justice was extremely opposed to this Bill. The replies that come from the Minister, often written by the departmental officials, were extremely opposed to how this Bill could be introduced. The mechanism the Minister has used - it is very simple mechanism - is the reason we have got here. That is why I want to speak to the amendments. Essentially, the mechanism is that justice should be done in public but because journalists are no longer present in our courts all the time, that can often go unreported. The simplicity of that is that justice should be done in public. As already happens in civil cases, for the very first time the Minister has now found a way for judgments in criminal cases to be reported on the Courts Service website. It has never been done before for other offences. For the first time, that moves us away from all the issues of privacy and it moves us into a very simple sphere that justice should be done in public and, therefore, if a decision of the court is public, it is already a matter of public record and all we are doing is publishing that on the website. When we do that, we are inevitably balancing the independence of the Judiciary. That is why there is some discretion in the legislation because, of course, there is a separation of powers. In striking that balance, the Minister is trying to acknowledge that. There were also concerns over expanding it beyond the current number of offences, which this group of amendments seeks to do, including murder, manslaughter, rape, strangulation, coercive control and so on. The reason for that was that in some cases those representing victims of domestic violence were fearful that it would put people off seeking a barring order, for example. In the initial stages there was talk about all of that being included in it. The Minister has limited it to the most serious offences, the fatal end of things, for a reason. Some of it is based on the concerns of people who represent people involved in domestic violence. I just put the details of the process on the record because that is why we landed on this. It is not because we decided to limit certain elements of this. It is because we are juggling that balance between the Judiciary and the powers of this House. For the first time, criminal judgments will be published on a website. It is this model and not the other model of, for example, a sex offender's register which involves a different methodology and process. I say that to the Deputies who tabled these amendments because they might not have been aware of how we landed where we are. I will not speak again on the other amendments. I acknowledge how far we have come. I acknowledge the Poole family. This law will be transformative in helping people across Ireland who are in a relationship to discover whether their partner had a domestic violence conviction. In her life as a mother, as a care worker and as a club member, Jennie gave so much to the community where she lived. She stood for everything that is so positive about our community. It is fitting that even in the tragedy that she and her family have experienced, she has continued to inspire this House to pass Jennie's law. I commend the Minister on his work and I commend the Bill to the House.

Sentiment score: -0.03

I welcome the clarification that it is three years after the sentence has been served. If someone has served a seven- or eight-year sentence under one of the 17 offences, they would not be able to apply for the removal until they get to year ten or 11. I welcome that clarification. The idea that someone comes off three years after the conviction is not the case; it is three years after the sentence has concluded. It is interesting that the Minister used the word "rehabilitation" and that it struck a chord in this House because, if I recall, that was the wording used during pre-legislative scrutiny by the Law Society. That gives us an insight into how a court might assess this legislation if it comes before it. The Law Society's argument in that discussion was that the sentence was the punishment and that an additional burden being put on the person who had committed the offence could be seen by a court as being unreasonable. I am with members of the Opposition here. Whether it is ten, 15 or 20 years, I have no problem with the time but what I am concerned about is that, were the Minister to extend it now, we could find ourselves in 18 months' time having no Jennie’s law at all. A court could strike out this law because it did not have regard to a principle that nobody in this House might have sympathy for but that the court assessing the law inevitably would, namely, the balancing of the two rights. Having fought for so long to have this law in place in respect of the 17 offences we are speaking about, we could end up not having it at all. If there is room for it to be extended, I would not oppose that but I want to be very careful that we have something robust that stands up so that we do not end up with no register at all.

Sentiment score: 0.01