Ruth Coppinger

Overall sentiment: -0.10
Back to Debate

8. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration considering the rights of victims and survivors of sexual offences, if he will consider a ban on the use of counselling records as evidence in criminal trials; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35579/26]

Sentiment score: -0.27

As the Minister knows, the issue of counselling notes being used in gender-based violence trials has been a massive issue for survivors. Even the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, GREVIO, has talked about this being an instrument of secondary victimisation. The Minister was forced to amend his own amendments to legislation in this regard because he came back with something that just was not satisfactory. I have only caught sight of the amendments he is proposing, which will be a hearing on a real risk of an unfair trial in the interests of justice or where it is relevant to an issue in a trial. There will still be the chilling effect for survivors and raw records being passed on to judges and defence teams.

Sentiment score: -0.39

I appreciate that the Minister had to go further than he was originally intending. He says he listened but he did not listen, for example, to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. I spoke to its representatives yesterday and cannot believe that the Minister had not even met them before tabling his amendments. This is the front-line organisation dealing with survivors and it did a huge amount of work and put forward a very detailed proposal. In that context, I cannot accept the suggestion that the Minister listened. The Minister says that it would be unconstitutional but we could argue that point because there are other constitutional rights that do not seem to be taken into consideration here, such as the right to privacy, to healthcare and so on. If our Constitution allows the damaging and harming of survivors, then there is something wrong and the Minister should come forward with a proposal for a referendum. In Tasmania, for example, they have managed to outlaw this practice and notes can only be handed over with the person's consent. This takes into account the fact that some people may want to use their counselling notes. It can be done if there is a will. What the Minister is bringing in is similar to what is in Canada and it has not really reduced requests for access to counselling notes.

Sentiment score: -0.14

The right to a fair trial includes the complainant as well. Does the Minister agree? I am assuming he does but that is never factored in. Gender-based violence is becoming a completely unpunished offence in this and other countries. That is the reality. Only 5% of people disclose to anyone or report it to gardaí. Why does the Minister think that is the case? It is because things like this remain on the books and are routinely used in our courts. The Minister said he listened but one would think he would at least meet the group to discuss its proposal, into which it put a lot of work. Has he listened, for example, to the therapist who had her front door knocked on by four gardaí looking for counselling notes? How is this in any way just? The Minister used the phrase "best interests" of survivors. He could have laid down a much higher bar than he did. For example, it is very broad to say "interests of justice" or "an issue in a trial". That can be interpreted in so many ways and it is not dealing with the central issue, which is that people are having to choose between therapy and a trial. Nothing is going to change with this proposal.

Sentiment score: 0.11

They are.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Only 5% report.

Sentiment score: 0.00

The Minister obviously does not understand the importance of this issue.

Sentiment score: -0.28

9. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will clarify that an applicant for naturalisation who has changed their name through a gender recognition certificate does not need to show use of that new name for two years in order to have the name appear on the certificate of naturalisation; if he will ensure the naturalisation process is informed by the Gender Recognition Act 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35578/26]

Sentiment score: 0.24

I want to raise a flaw or a gap in the naturalisation process in the context of the Gender Recognition Act. I have been contacted by a constituent who last year changed their gender and name through the Gender Recognition Act. That process allows a person not just to register a change of gender but also to alter their name. They are a citizen of another EU state, working and living in Ireland. They applied for naturalisation but cannot progress that application because of the rule that people must be using a name for two years.

Sentiment score: -0.08

The problem is that the use and repute clause is not applied for a marriage certificate, for example. If somebody submits a marriage certificate saying they have now changed their name, it is recognised immediately. So, it can be done but it is not being done in the case of a gender recognition certificate. When people obtain a gender recognition certificate, it is assumed that it can be used straight away. There is nothing said about a period of time that must elapse first. This needs to be looked at in the naturalisation process because my constituent has been forced to cancel their application for citizenship and has lost their fee. They do not want to carry on with obtaining an important State document with their old or so-called dead name. It will be another year before they can have a passport in their new name. This has serious implications for transgender people who are constantly having to explain their gender when they interact with the State, services and so on. It causes difficulty as well when travelling. This is something the Minister needs to look at.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I accept what the Minister is saying about needing to check out a person's past. I have helped many people with their naturalisation applications. However, if a person has been investigated and has demonstrated a change in gender and name under the Gender Recognition Act, surely the process is simple enough. It should not take two years. There is an anomaly and it should be reviewed. The Gender Recognition Act was meant to be reviewed in any case to also allow for recognition of non-binary status. That change was recommended and indicated. This is something that will impinge on many people's lives. As far as I know, we still recognise trans people in this country. We should allow them, if they are naturalised, to move to their new name as quickly as possible.

Sentiment score: 0.15

15. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will consider changes in legislation in relation to the use of character references in sentencing hearings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35581/26]

Sentiment score: 0.15

My question relates to character references. We have seen a spate of them recently from former TDs, many of whom seem to be hanging around the Fianna Fáil party. They do not have any understanding of how damaging this is to the victims of these crimes. Why are we still allowing character references from people who have absolutely no expertise in anything to do with any of these crimes? It is an outrage.

Sentiment score: -0.23

We are not talking about writing a reference for a mother who took a packet of nappies because she is living in poverty. In most cases, these references are from relatives or former school principals who knew the offender 20 years ago, or from a GAA football manager or whoever. In the case of child sexual abuse and gender-based violence, they should be banned entirely because the people who carry out such offences are absolute master manipulators. They have groomed people, including adults and children, and fooled relatives. We have seen cases of femicide where the perpetrator fooled the entire family of the victim. No solitary thing can be believed about these people. No one knows what they have done in private, behind closed doors, in such a personal crime as child sexual abuse or gender-based violence. In a trial relating to two sisters, the last word was given to references for their brother who had already been found guilty of abusing them from relatives of the brother who knew nothing about him. The references need to go. They are very confusing and damaging.

Sentiment score: -0.56

I was particularly talking about sexual and gender-based violence because it is a particular type of personal crime. These people fool judges as well. Let us be frank. Judges are not exactly top of the class. These references are designed to get people off. In the case of the two women I spoke to - and I know them - there were suspended sentences after character references were submitted. I want to ask about this oath of affirmation. Where was the oath of affirmation for the person standing in the witness box when Jim Glennon, a former TD and a personal friend of the Minister, wrote a character reference for a person who had images of child sexual abuse? We all had to wait a week or so to find out who the former TD was. He did not stand up in the witness box, so it does not seem like the oath is being applied. Former Deputy Marc MacSharry wrote a reference for a property developer who terrorised children. This seems to be a plague within Fianna Fáil. A former Ceann Comhairle wrote a horrific reference as well and has never apologised to the victims, despite being asked to do so.

Sentiment score: -0.26

They have.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am not.

Sentiment score: 0.00