To be clear, it is not the behaviour of the perpetrator that is considered serious; it is the effect on the victim. It is if it seriously interferes with the victim's peace or privacy. It is from the perspective of the victim as to whether or not it could be considered "seriously". As I read it, the victim's voice is what is relevant in determining whether something has been serious or not.

There is also a reasonable person-test then applied to that. One could have somebody who might think something is serious that simply is not. On the other hand, the Senator is correct that just because that person is a little more robust should not mean that somebody can get away with something more there as well. The courts have to take into account what they consider to be a reasonable person. There is much case law around that as well. It can be, I suppose, if one is simply taking the word on its own, a question…

My understanding is that the courts have interpreted persistent as being effectively two or more events. It should not require daily or weekly occurrence, or anything like that. The Senator is certainly correct that harassment can be seasonal with the perpetrator acting in waves, and where one is dealing with it on and off. As I understand it, however, the courts have interpreted "persistence" as being on two or more occasions. That should covered under that section.

With regard to these conditions, the section extends it the definition to include "about", which can be quite a serious extension. Judicial discretion does not have to apply in this matter. If, however, judges apply discretion, they can attach conditions. If that is the case, I expect that counsel for the person who has been convicted will apply for conditions to be attached. If there were specific circumstances that required that to be done, counsel could appeal to the judge to apply his or her discretion to the e…

Senators will be aware that the requirement to review the Act within three years of its commencement, in section 12 of the Bill, was introduced by way of an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil. While there is already a requirement under Standing Orders to carry out a post-enactment report in respect of all new legislation within one year from the date of its passing, I appreciate that this is not always enough time to gather clear data on the impact of the new legislation. It was agreed, therefore, that the Bi…

I move amendment No. 1: In page 13, to delete lines 13 to 19 and substitute the following: “(a) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (d): “(d) in the case of a designated person who is a barrister, the Legal Services Regulatory Authority;”, (b) by the deletion of paragraph (da) (inserted by section 214 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015), (c) by the insertion after paragraph (d) of the following paragraph: “(db) in the case of a designated person that is a property services provider, …

I thank Deputy Howlin for sponsoring the Bill and pursuing it. It is extremely important and I commend his work on it. I also thank Members throughout the House for their contributions on the Bill as it has worked its way through the Dáil. Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 all relate to the definition of an intimate image for the purposes of the offences in sections 2 and 3 of the Bill. There was some discussion of this issue on Committee Stage and I appreciate that Deputies are concerned about the implications of the definit…

This group of amendments relates to section 3, which deals with the distribution and publication of intimate images without consent. Amendment No. 8 attempts to include the concept of selling, transmitting, making available or advertising an intimate image without consent. These behaviours are already covered by the concepts of distributing or publishing, with the exception, perhaps, of the notion of making an intimate image available. I am not sure what is intended by it, but it appears to be vague and, as such, i…

I appreciate Deputy Howlin's concern in regard to the issue of intention. Generally speaking, it is the position in criminal matters that intention can be proved by reference to the natural and probable consequences of a person's actions. I would see no harm in including the proposed subsection 4(2), as inserted by amendment No. 15, in the Bill. Unfortunately, the amendment also makes a change to subsection (1). I cannot agree to that change in the structure of the offence, which has been carefully considered. Ther…

There is no particular difficulty with Deputy Howlin's intent, but my concern is that if we accept this amendment now, the consideration that may need to be given to it may mean the Bill is not ready for tomorrow. That is my understanding and we do not want any risk to it in these circumstances.

I was accepting-----

I accept the intention as opposed to what the Deputy is proposing. My view is that what the Deputy is intending to do is perfectly rational, reasonable and understandable.

I believe there will be a risk to the Bill tomorrow. I would have to oppose it on the basis that we want the Bill passed tomorrow. We are in an impossible situation because I know that Deputy Howlin wants this Bill passed tomorrow as well. It is a very important Bill to have passed. I have to highlight the risk and I am in the unfortunate position of having to oppose something I think is probably worthy. I do not think it is necessary in the context of the Bill, either way, because the law is very clear as to the c…

There will be one.

Absolutely, I said that earlier.

The only amendment that would require a potential delay is the amendment to the amendment that Deputy Howlin proposed, as opposed to the published amendments. It is the only one that would cause a particular difficulty. I hope the legislation will proceed to the Seanad tomorrow. Senators will have an opportunity to submit amendments tonight if they believe they are necessary. With regard to the definition of intent in criminal law, a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his or her a…

Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 propose to extend the anonymity provisions in section 5 of the Bill to the offence of harassment under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. Anonymity and privacy provisions in legislation are an exception to the normal rules in regard to the administration of justice in public guaranteed by the Constitution. Any departure from this must be justifiable. I appreciate that the nature of image-based offences would certainly warrant the protection of privacy conside…

I can. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, undertakes to consider this seriously in the context of a Bill that is being prepared at the moment.

Unfortunately, I cannot give a specific timeline. I will ask the Minister, Deputy McEntee, to provide a timeline in respect of when the additional legislation is expected to be brought forward in the new year. Amendment No. 18 proposes the waiving of anonymity of a victim. That is not considered necessary. The Minister indicated on Committee Stage that she is satisfied that the matter can be considered within the interests of justice test, as set out in section 5. The aim of these provisions is to protect the victi…

I move amendment No. 20: In page 5, lines 24 and 25, to delete “he or she may direct” and substitute “he or she may, having taken into account the views of the alleged victim of the offence, direct”. As I indicated, I wish to assure Deputies that the views of an alleged victim must be taken into account where a decision to lift the restrictions on publication of matters likely to identify a victim of an offence under section 2 or 3 is concerned. This amendment, therefore, places an obligation on a judge to take acc…