There are many aspects of this Bill that I welcome. In particular, in relation to so-called sex for rent, I welcome the protections that will be afforded to people who are victims of such behaviour by ruthless landlords. I also welcome the detail in regard to the complex network analysis, CNA, techniques in locating missing persons. Unfortunately, there are a number of constituents of mine in County Louth who still have family members who are missing and I really hope this is of benefit to them. I also welcome section 31 amending the Schedule to the Bail Act, which will add the offences of coercive control and forced marriage. This will be hugely beneficial and it has been an oversight. Deputy Lawless made a point that is something I have reflected on in the past. There is merit whereby for serial offenders who are using this kind of revolving door and have had a number of convictions, perhaps we should make them pay back their free legal aid in some way. That is something we need to explore. I also note the Minister’s comments in his opening statement in regard to the recommendations by the justice committee on the complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling notes in criminal trials. This recommendation was not made lightly but was a result of consultation and listening to witnesses from various bodies, and most importantly from people – women – who have been victims of sexual violence. These were harrowing stories that no one should ever have to hear, much less have to experience. Their stories recounted how their trauma was compounded by their counselling notes being used against them. Their stories took us right back to the beginning to the actual offence itself, the rape or sexual violence, the detail of it and the number of years they have spent in some cases in counselling. Then there is the fact that not only were those counselling notes used against them, but that the time they lost in having to go over and over that detail from the very beginning retraumatised them, never mind the moment when they had to give evidence in cross-examination. The presumption of innocence and a fair trial are the cornerstones of our legal system and pillars that I wholeheartedly believe in. They should be guarded and protected at all costs. However, I struggle to understand how the exclusion of counselling notes can threaten these principles. One of the victims set out the whole episode from the moment in which she took the stand and was cross-examined. The first question put to her by the defence barrister was whether she had ever taken the morning after pill. What a question to ask. One would wonder why he was asking this question. However, within her counselling notes, it had been noted that a week after the brutal, vicious rape that she had been subjected to, it dawned on her that she could actually be pregnant, so she went to the chemist and, for the first time in her life, purchased the morning after pill. That was the first question. Within her counselling notes, it was noted that the trauma of the incident had left her feeling so defiled and so dirty that the very thought of her children touching her left her in a position whereby for years she could not hug her own children. The second question by the defence barrister was “Do you hug your children?” The Minister will be very familiar with the setting and he can imagine sitting in the chair answering questions. You are nervous, overwhelmed and are being traumatised and the jury is looking on at you. The jury is made up of men and women with everyday values. To be asked if you have ever taken the morning after pill and then whether you ever hug your children, when the answer is limited to “No, I can’t”, what is a jury to think? What in a reasonable person’s mind are they beginning to formulate in their head as an image of the alleged victim? The third question was “How are the intimate relations with your husband?” When it was noted that there were none, that was followed up by a comment to the effect that, nonetheless, she had sought the morning after pill. There is a rhythm or imagery there and a notion of what the victim could potentially be. A picture is being formed for a jury by a defence barrister. I would like to say that this story is an unusual story but it is not. It is a story that has been told again and again with some variations or changes but there is a common theme that runs through all the questioning. It is not legitimate questioning, in my view, but it is open to the defence barrister to put these questions in a way that they see fit. However, I do not believe it is fair. Will the Minister illuminate me? Let me understand how dragging a woman’s reputation through the gutter - that is what we are talking about here - by using her own counselling notes and her innermost thoughts that probably had to be dragged out of her in the first place because of the trauma she was subjected to is fair. How can that be some sort of barrier or tantamount to blocking a fair trial? Can he help me understand how insinuating that a woman as a result of her trauma was somehow a bad mother because she could not hug her children because she felt dirty and, in her words, contaminated could be considered necessary to ensure a fair trial? The manner in which counselling notes are used in criminal trials is not fair in its essence. Often they are not even mentioned or relied on by the prosecution. Therefore, it could be argued that it is only a stick to further beat the alleged victim and is of no real evidential value. Indeed, I believe their very existence in a trial is a step backwards and is reminiscent of the days when we could question a woman’s clothing and behaviour to question whether she was asking for it or not, and offering a defence free of charge to an alleged perpetrator. A fair trial has to be fair to all. If the Attorney General believes that there may be issues of unconstitutionality, then he needs to set out the reasons he believes it is unconstitutional. I believe the Minister needs to work harder and we need to work harder, as does the Attorney General, to find a way to ensure our legal principles remain solid but that our women and men who are subjected to heinous, violent and frankly unforgiveable sexual and violent attacks are never further victimised or harassed by our own judicial system. The presumption of disclosure as proposed by the Minister does not go far enough. Let me be clear - I have said it before and I will say it again – counselling notes have no place in the courtroom.

Sentiment score: -0.10