Residential Tenancies and Valuation Bill 2020: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2020-07-31
============================================================

Barry Ward (FG), Industrial and Commercial Panel

This raises a legitimate issue. The concerns expressed by Senators on Second Stage and in moving this amendment are real concerns with a real basis. The people identified are exactly the people to whom Senator Moynihan referred, those with literacy difficulties for whom English is not their first language, or those with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities and so on. I can understand where this amendment is coming from in terms of the creation of a criminal offence in section 4(2). The concern is that people might make a mistaken false statement or accidentally say something that is not true, correct or fully correct and might subsequently find themselves before the courts answering for that mistake. However, that is not the way that the criminal law works.
I spoke earlier in the week of our criminal justice system which is very fair. One of its tenets is that one does not commit criminal offences by mistake, there must be an element of mental intention to commit an offence. The concerns are that people might unwittingly make a mistaken declaration and subsequently find themselves before the court answering, in a criminal context, for having made that mistake are probably unfounded.
It is not immediately clear how the matter might proceed in terms of the prosecution of any offence under this but I suggest, and this is an area in which I have worked for a long time, that one could not prosecute people under this subsection unless they had wilfully and intentionally made a misstatement or an untruth on the form. Anything short of that would not pass muster in terms of the protections that exist within criminal law, the requirement for a mental intent, and the requirement for it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. They exist regardless of level, whether it is the District Court or a jury trial in a more superior court. While I wholly accept the bona fides that underlines the amendment and the concerns that are genuinely held, they are unnecessary as the system exists in such a way, which applied not only in regulatory matters such as this but everything from shoplifting a Mars bar from a shop to public order offences and very serious offences, with the golden thread that goes through to protect individuals who are charged with these offences.
The concerns that underpin the amendment are unfounded because the system already takes account of people making mistakes or accidents and they are not liable to the criminal law for them.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2020-07-31/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:48:31+00:00
Sitting date: 2020-07-31