Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-02 ============================================================ Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South I thank Senator Higgins for her contribution. At the outset can I say that when it comes to the extension of a public order offence or, indeed, any offence, one of the things I must do, and indeed all legislators must do, is, on the one hand look at the position, as Senator Higgins has, of the alleged perpetrator - the person who may end up being prosecuted for this new offence. That certainly has to be taken into account. Similarly, I as Minister in particular, have to take into account a person who is affected at present by the fact that there is no such provision in our legal system. I refer Senator Higgins to the protest that happened in Northern Ireland a number of weeks ago where racial minorities were targeted by mobs of people who went around wearing masks on their faces to disguise their identity. They were in the business of intimidating people because of their race. It was reprehensible activity. If something is happening in Northern Ireland, it does not mean that it will not happen here. There is a prospect that it could happen. Whether it is intimidation from the far right, as was in the case of Northern Ireland, or intimidation from the far left is irrelevant. We need to recognise, regrettably, that there are people who will use face coverings for the purposes of trying to intimidate people and, as is required in this legislation, would "give rise to a reasonable apprehension" on the part of a garda that the "safety of persons or the safety of property or ... the maintenance of public peace" is compromised. Senator Higgins mentioned a number of reasons people wear face coverings. As I said at the outset, of course people will still be entitled to wear face coverings. I do not need to put that in this legislation. There is not a provision in legislation which says what is permissible. All we do in legislation which prescribes criminal offences is set out the behaviour that is not permissible. It is clearly the case that anyone who wishes to wear a face covering for health reasons, religious observances or privacy reasons or, as I said to the Senator, because they are at a protest and they do not want their employer to know that they are at a protest, will be able to continue. As I repeatedly say, when the courts come to interpret this provision, and it will be the court interpreting it, it will be the words that we have decided to put into the statutory provision that will be the sole mechanism of the courts in determining and interpreting the statute. In the first instance, there has to be a "reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of public peace". That has to be there as a sine qua non . There must also be the following. The person must be "wearing the face covering on his or her face ... with intent to intimidate another person, ... or in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person". I do not see the types of issues the Senator has with this because of the language here. I will explain the reason the wording, "in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person", is there. If that provision was in existence in Northern Ireland, it might have been possible to say, in terms of when people went out on their race riots, that they acted with "intent to intimidate another person, or ... in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person". I believe both those aspects would be necessary to cover the type of racial intimidation operating then. If people want to wear a face covering for health reasons, then they can, of course, continue to wear it because they are intimidating nobody. If people want to wear a face covering for religious observance reasons, then, of course, they are permitted to wear it because they are intimidating nobody. If people want to wear a face covering at a protest, because they do not want to be identified, they can, of course, still wear it. In fact, people can wear a face covering in any situation they want to, but if they are wearing a face covering and there is a "reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of public peace", and the face covering is being worn with the "intent to intimidate another person, or in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person", that triggers the offence. One of the issues Senator Higgins raised with me was why I did not put into the legislation that it shall not be a criminal offence for somebody to wear a face covering for religious observance reasons, health reasons or to disguise their identity for legitimate reasons to do with their employment. I do not need to do that. If we start going into that type of statutory drafting, we will then have to cover every possible situation. We are not going to set out in law all the types of behaviour which are lawful. That is not the purpose of the criminal law. We proscribe the behaviour that is unlawful, and that is what this provision does. I think it does it in a responsible way. Coming back to the point I started with, I commend Senator Higgins on taking into consideration the position of the alleged perpetrator who may be subject to prosecution, if the legislation is enacted, but I also have to take into account those people who are affected, the people who may be intimidated and the people who are intimidated by people wearing face coverings. I cannot ignore 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/2026-07-02/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:09+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-02