Before we start, I welcome from Butte, Montana, Scott Drain and Sheri Drain. Butte, Montana, of course, is famous in our part of the world because so many people from south Kerry and west Cork ended up working in the mines in Butte, Montana, which at one stage had more people from Ireland living there than any other city in the United States west of the Mississippi.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 29, after “subsection (4)” to insert “and (4A)”

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the safety of victims. As we know, for this register to go ahead the victim must give their consent. We want to make sure the victims are safeguarded when giving consent. While they may have endured years of violence, coercive control or whatever the offence was and while the person has been convicted of that crime and hopefully will be serving a sentence, it does not mean that the control, intimidation and harassment have ended. I am aware of many people who have separated after violent episodes, and harassment, pressure and fear continue.

This amendment seeks to ensure that victims are given proper support, that sufficient information will be provided to them, that they will have support from specialist domestic violence services, and that they will be able to make informed and safe decisions. We need to be absolutely certain that the victim is giving their consent freely and voluntarily, that they have the ability to withdraw that consent at any stage prior to publication, and that that would be respected.

The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I thank everyone for their consideration of the Bill. I welcome to the Seanad Chamber Jason Poole whom I had the honour of meeting today. On Second Stage the background to the Bill - its genesis in the brutal and senseless murder of an innocent young woman - was outlined by all. Senators of all parties and none praised the Poole family for their tireless campaign on behalf of their beloved Jennifer.

I take this opportunity to reiterate that those with serious criminal convictions for domestic violence offences should not be able to escape the consequences of their behaviour.

Those in relationships or considering entering into relationships with convicted offenders deserve to know about their past. They are entitled to make informed decisions about their personal lives. This legislation will provide people with important information in relation to their safety. Abusers thrive on secrecy and shame. However, it is a fundamental principle of our legal system that justice is to be done in public. This register will contribute to ensuring that criminal convictions for these heinous crimes are appropriately published. I look forward to today's debate.

I thank Senator Tully for submitting amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and for her contribution on them. However, I regret that I cannot accept them. Amendment No. 2 specifies that the court must be satisfied that:

(a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given,

(b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and

(c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.

Amendment No. 1 is a consequential amendment to ensure that the substance of amendment No. 2 is incorporated into section 2(d). While I have some reservations about the drafting, I want to focus in the first instance on the substance of the amendments. As the Senator outlined, specialist domestic violence services play a crucial role in providing support, assistance and help to victims. They are often a lifeline for people who find themselves in these harrowing situations and their services make a real and important difference to their clients.

The Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has been clear in his determination to address domestic violence and part of that determination means funding these vital services. For example, he allocated more than €3 million six months ago specifically for the expansion of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services. Cuan disbursed this funding to 67 organisations working in this sphere on foot of a rigorous assessment process. I fully understand and appreciate the importance of these organisations that work across the country. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is appropriate to include reference to them in the legislation. It is unclear what process a court could use to determine whether a victim had been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, nor is it clear what is required to enable informed and safe decision-making in this context or, for that matter, what constitutes informed and safe decision-making. For these reasons, I am unable to accept these amendments.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that—

(a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given,

(b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and

(c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete line 11 and substitute the following:

“(b) the date of birth of the convicted person;”.

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. From the outset, I want to make clear that this is a very important Bill that has the full support of the Labour Party. We need to make sure that it is watertight and operates as intended. That is why we have tabled these amendments.

We believe that there is a real risk of misidentification in the proposed register and we aim to counteract that. Currently, the register relies solely on names and approximate ages. As the Bill is currently drafted, a judgment to be included in the register will contain the name of the convicted person, the age of the convicted person where available and, subject to the court's discretion and where available, the residential address. This combination of name, age and discretionary address is the complete identification framework currently proposed. We believe that there is a real risk of misidentification as part of this. Ireland has a relatively small population and a heavily concentrated surname distribution, in particular in large urban areas such as Dublin, so combining a common surname with a common first name, for example, John Murphy or Seán Kelly, and a birth year would produce a non-trivial probability of multiple matches. The register is public facing and also Internet searchable. There is no unique identifier such as a PPS number, date of birth or physical description in the mandatory fields.

We raise this issue only because this Bill is so important. We cannot let the risk of misidentification get in the way of an entirely worthy aim of empowering people to protect themselves from domestic abusers in their lives. We need to get this right.

Amendment No. 3 would require the inclusion of the date of birth of the convicted person to be included in the register of judgments in all cases. Currently, the Bill only requires that the judgment include the age of the convicted person, where available. A person sharing a name and approximate age with a registrant could be misidentified by employers, landlords, neighbours or partners consulting the public register. We believe that the inclusion of a date of birth in all cases would be an important step in disambiguating the names on the register. It is a simple step but one we believe is essential.

I want to speak to amendment No. 4, which is proposed by the Labour Party. Amendment No. 4 states:

In page 4, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(ca) the record number assigned to the proceedings by the court;”.

This amendment would require the publication of the court record number for proceedings in which a person was convicted to be published on the register. Again, this is for the purposes of disambiguation and would allow anyone to request the underlying judgment for verification and for it to be made available. We believe that this is a commonsense step that would help to substantially mitigate any risk of misidentification. The principle here is the same one that underlies the Bill itself, namely, transparency. If a person consulting the register is empowered in this way to request access to court records, the risk of someone being wrongly identified falls significantly. That, of course, protects the individual who may be misidentified, but it also strengthens trust in the register itself. It is important that the public have trust in this register, which is what we should all be aiming for in pushing this legislation forward. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendments.

I thank Senators Harmon and Cosgrove for putting forward both of these amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to try to ensure that the person who is referred to in the judgment that is published is identifiable.

If we look at how things operate at present, it can be quite instructive as to how we should approach this. Part of the reason I am introducing this legislation is because people can be convicted of serious indictable offences in the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court yet nobody is aware of it unless there happens to be a journalist in court. If we take the example, however, where there is a journalist in court, we can see that information is frequently published in newspapers about reports of convictions. The person is identified. Sometimes, their photograph is not available. We see people covering their faces coming out of court. There is a mechanism whereby they are identifiable. Sometimes, it is in the context of the victims identifying themselves. It is the case that there is a mechanism to ensure that people are known – who they are and what they have been convicted of.

It is the case in Ireland that many people share the same name and there are such people from the same townland. I did give consideration to what is being proposed by Senator Harmon – to include the date of birth of the convicted person. At present, what is required is the name, age and residential address, subject to subsection (6), of the convicted person and other particulars of the offence for which the convicted person was convicted, as well as the penalty imposed on the convicted person. Ultimately, I left it as the age of the person as opposed to putting in the specific date of birth because the departmental officials and I had concerns about the inclusion of a full date of birth, particularly when combined with other personal details such as, potentially, a residential address.

The fear was that this could significantly increase the risk of misuse of personal data, including via identity theft, because somebody would have access to a person's name, potentially his or her address and his or her date of birth. I have decided that the person's age will be included. That is very much an identifying factor. It is probably equally as identifying a factor as a date of birth since most people are not aware of individuals' date of birth.

On amendment No. 4, which proposes to include the court record number associated with the proceedings, I am not persuaded that this information would materially assist in identifying an offender. Court record numbers are highly specific administrative references and are unlikely to be readily available or known to members of the public who are seeking to verify an individual's identity through the register.

While I will obviously keep this under review, overall, I am satisfied that the combination of the offender's name, age and, where appropriate, residential address, together with the other information necessarily contained in the written judgment, will provide sufficient information to identify an offender accurately. I therefore believe that the register as currently structured strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring effective identification of offenders and safeguarding personal data while also remaining fully capable of achieving its intended objectives. I will obviously keep it under review, however. If it needs to be expanded after enactment, I will certainly give consideration to other factors.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(ca) the record number assigned to the proceedings by the court;”.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 20, after “justice” to insert “, safety, and the best interests of a child,”.

We welcome this legislation. We hope that it will bring about a level of safety for people, especially women, who often enter into relationships without knowing the type of people they are entering into relationships with. Women sometimes end up in very complex relationships, even when they do know that the people they have entered relationships with have caused harm in their communities. It can be very difficult to understand the vulnerabilities that exist for women in those complex situations.

Our amendment is concerned with a person's address. I understand that the previous Labour amendments wanted to ensure that people were identified accurately. Including an address, a date of birth and so on could ensure that people would not be misidentified. However, we also need to understand that people who abuse someone often do not only abuse one person. While they may have a conviction relating to a relationship with someone else, they may go on to create another family with somebody who does not know about that. They may have children. Our concern is whether the best interests of such children will be taken into account if an address is to appear on a public register. While we are creating safety for anybody who encounters and ends up in a relationship with a person that is known to be violent, there may be other family members within that household. What does that do for them? How are they protected? Should we reduce their levels of safety? They are already in an unsafe situation if they are in a household with a violent man. Obviously, the ideal solution is to create safety and to remove them from that situation. If they are not removed, however, will a person's name being included on this register lead to minors being exposed? In the worst-case scenario, children in school may become aware that their classmate's father is on a register. They know it is him because the address will be included rather than just the name. People in the community may then descend on the house. What protections or safety plans have been put in place for other people who are living in that house? They obviously need to be protected from that individual, but they may also need to be protected from the public. We have had vigilantism in this country before. We had it in the eighties and nineties in relation to drugs, and we have seen it where paedophiles have lived in communities. I have witnessed this is in my own community. My fear is that in seeking to protect some people, we may risk reducing the safety of others who are living within a household. What does including a person's full address mean for the protection and rights of other people who live with that person?

I thank Senator Ruane for putting down the amendment. Consideration has obviously been given to the extent to which the address of the offender, the convicted person, should be published. That is why it is contained within a separate subsection, namely the proposed section 40A(6). As the Senator can see, the court is to be given a discretionary power to omit the residential address. The factor to be taken into account in determining whether to include or omit the residential address is the interests of justice.

On the issues Senator Ruane has highlighted, we have to consider the situation at present if there is a journalistic report in a newspaper of a person being convicted of a very serious criminal offence against an intimate partner. At present, there is no preclusion or prohibition on the publication of the address. In many instances, the addresses are published and people are aware of them. I am not aware of incidences of people being subject to vigilantism, to use the Senator's words. I do understand that could happen but it could happen as things are at present.

One of the motivating factors behind the legislation is the recognition of the inconsistency that operates in respect of certain offences being reported and other offences not being reported. It is certainly the case that if you are a well-known person, your case will be reported on. It is also the case that if your case is tried and your conviction takes place in the Criminal Courts of Justice in Dublin, there is a greater likelihood of it being reported because of the constant presence of journalists there. However, you could be convicted of a similarly serious offence by the Circuit Court in a courthouse down the country and, because there is no journalist in the courthouse, nobody would know about it.

Senator Ruane has suggested that the section be amended to expressly refer to "safety, and the best interests of a child". However, the Bill already includes within it the determining factor, that is, whether it is in the interests of justice. When considering whether the interests of justice require the omission of a residential address, I have no doubt that the judge will weigh up all of the factors of the particular case. This will necessarily include the circumstances of the convicted person, of the victim and of any children connected to the case.

It is unquestionably the case that, in determining this matter, the court will take into account the factors the Senator's amendment seeks to expressly include, including the interests of a child living in the House where the convicted person resides. Considerations of safety and welfare will be paramount in any decision as to whether it is in the interests of justice not to publish a residential address. As a result, I will not be accepting the amendment. Senator Ruane's concerns are already recognised within the legislation by the fact that residential addresses are dealt with by a separate subsection, section 40A(6), and by the fact that the interests of justice are broad enough to cover the issues the Senator is concerned about.

If the Minister is saying that the interests of justice include an automatic assessment of the best interests of a child, I am comfortable that this will cover our concerns. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, line 33, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.

The proposals in amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are to delete three years and substitute it with five years on lines 33 and 37 on page 4 and line 3 on page 5. They are also to include that the court:

may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and

(b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.”.

I also raised this on Second Stage. I feel that three years on the register before you can apply to have your name removed is very short. I feel it should be at least five years. If someone is convicted for a serious offence, serves their time in prison, comes out and is put on the register, three years goes past quickly. If a potential partner in three and a half years’ time checks that register, and the name has been removed, they will not know that person was convicted of a serious crime. I know the Minister said on Second Stage he would give consideration to this. Will he consider changing it from three years to at least five years? In some instances, the perpetrator should also be informed if the nature of the crime is really serious that they cannot apply to have their name removed from the register for an even longer period of time. The purpose of the register is to warn potential partners of someone who was convicted of a serious crime in past years of what they have done and warn the potential partner of the dangers of that before they commit to a relationship. Three years is nothing, in my opinion, and it will pass very quickly. I ask the Minister to consider increasing it to five years.

I thank Senator Tully for her amendment. Obviously this is new legislation. It is a departure from what was there previously. When you are introducing new and novel legislation you have to proceed, as I am sure the Senator can appreciate, with caution at the outset. The advantage of establishing this as a statutory provision, and it being a principle in our legal system that there is such a statute available, is that we can review it and look at it and see how it is developing after it is enacted and we see its operation. What is proposed by Senator Tully is that the statutory period of three years for an application to have the name removed from the register be extended to five years. Under the current provisions, once a judgment is entered on the register it may only be removed following an application by the offender, and only after three years have elapsed from the date of conviction where no term of imprisonment was imposed, or from the date of release where the conviction resulted in imprisonment. The amendments propose extending that minimum period from three years to five years. In addition, amendment No. 9 seeks to introduce a provision enabling the court to order that the judgment shall remain on the register for a longer period.

I am not going to accept the amendments although I have given careful consideration to them. I emphasise, first and foremost, that there is no automatic expiry date for the inclusion of a judgment on the register. Once you are on the register, you will not get off that register of judgments unless you apply, but many people will not apply. The Bill does not impose any limit on the length of time a judgment may remain on the register. Once entered, a judgment will continue to be recorded unless and until the offender makes an application for its removal and the court is satisfied that removal is appropriate. In reaching that decision the court must have regard to a range of factors, including the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation and, importantly, the views of the victim. The Bill provides for a minimum period that must elapse before an offender may apply for removal and that period has been set by me at three years. It is important to recognise that inclusion on the register may have significant implications for an offender's ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, including in areas such as employment. I have to take those factors into account as well. For that reason, the minimum period for inclusion on the register must be proportionate and must strike an appropriate balance between the objectives of accountability, public protection from domestic violence and rehabilitation.

I want to be clear that this provision does not permit the automatic or immediate removal of a judgment from the register once the three-year period has expired. It merely allows the offender to apply to the court for removal, with the final decision resting entirely with the court. I know Senator Tully is not suggesting this, but people should be aware that this statutory provision I am introducing does not simply mean you stay on the register of judgments for three years and then it elapses. There is no period after which it will stop unless an application is brought. The period we are talking about here is how long after conviction or release can an application be brought. I have said you have to wait for three years. Senator Tully says five years. On balance I will stick to three years. I have to be careful when introducing new legislation like this, which people will seek to challenge as is their entitlement, and I want to be able to show that it is proportionate and I have been proportionate in balancing the primary interests. These are on the one hand protecting women and people who have been abused and may be abused in the future by convicted people, and rehabilitation of offenders on the other.

I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept five years. I understand absolutely that when someone goes on the register, they are on it until they apply to come off it. I cannot imagine that any person will not apply to come off it once the three-year period is up. I do not know why anybody would want to remain on it. It is a good idea to have the register, and I support it. I think it acts as a deterrent to people to perpetrate violence, mainly against women. I imagine that people will not want to stay on the register any longer than they have to. As I said, three years go by so fast, and then somebody gets into a new relationship with a person, and they are not on that register. I just feel it is too short a period of time to remain on it. I am disappointed the Minister will not consider it.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, line 3, to delete "3 years" and substitute "5 years".

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(9A) Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and

(b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.".

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(10A) A person who believes that information contained in a judgment included in the Register is liable incorrectly to identify him or her as a convicted person may apply to the court which ordered the inclusion of the judgement in the Register for a determination under subsection (10C).

(10B) On receipt of an application under subsection (10A), the Courts Service shall—

(a) annotate the relevant judgment on the Register forthwith to indicate that an application under subsection (10A) is under consideration,

(b) notify the court which made the order for inclusion of the judgment in the Register, and

(c) refer the matter to that court for determination.

(10C) On an application under subsection (10A), the court may make one or more of the following orders—

(a) an order that the judgment be annotated in such terms as it considers appropriate;

(b) an order that the judgment be temporarily removed from the Register pending such further steps as the court may specify;

(c) if satisfied that the judgment is liable incorrectly to identify the applicant as the convicted person, an order directing the permanent removal of the judgment from the Register or directing such amendment to the information in the judgment as it thinks fit.

(10D) An application under subsection (10A) shall not affect the entitlement of the convicted person to apply for removal of the judgment from the Register under subsection (9).".

I welcome the previous comment from the Minister that he will keep the legislation under review, particularly regarding the previous amendments tabled by the Labour Party, namely amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which were rejected. It is important that this register be kept under review in relation to the information provided on how it will work in practice.

We are very supportive of this Bill as a whole. Amendment No. 10 is a simple one that we believe amounts to a common-sense fix to the risk of any misidentification. It provides a mechanism by which a person who believes he or she is being misidentified may apply to the Courts Service for annotation or temporary removal of the judgment. On receiving such an application from a person who believes he or she is at risk of being misidentified as a domestic abuser, the judgment would be annotated to say that an application is under consideration. This would provide some mitigation in the case of misidentification in the interim. The matter would then be considered by the court that made the initial order for inclusion on the register. Having considered the application, it could then annotate the judgment as it considers appropriate or temporarily remove the judgment from the register.

We believe an open register like this, while absolutely welcome and needed, carries risks that need to be mitigated. There needs to be a process such as the one we are advocating in the legislation to take account of any risk of misidentification and spell out how a person could go about fixing the problem if he or she were to find himself or herself in that unfortunate position. We really need to consider this risk as part of the legislation. At the same time, we absolutely welcome this substantive legislation. It has been a long time coming and people deserve to know about this matter and to have transparency in relation to it. It particularly affects women, so the proposed measure is absolutely needed. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment.

I thank Senator Harmon for the amendment. Again, it is worthwhile to examine the situation currently because it is unquestionably the case that, at present, a person can be incorrectly identified as the person referred to in a judgment. There are very many reserved written judgments on the website www.courts.ie at present. We have judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. There is the odd one from the Circuit Court. The reason this legislation is necessary is that where there is trial by jury in the criminal context, it is seldom the case that there is a written judgment. The reason is that at the end of the process, a person is either found guilty or not guilty. For example, in the recent trial of Jeffrey Donaldson, there was no written judgment. There is just a record of the decision of the jury, which is announced publicly.

At present, however, there are reserved judgments which are reported judgments of the courts in respect of appeals to the Court of Appeal from criminal convictions. Where somebody is convicted of a serious offence and appeals it to the Court of Appeal, frequently and generally there is a written judgment where the names of the people are identified. Similarly, even where there is not a written reserved judgment of a judge, there are very many cases where serious criminal trials are reported on in the newspapers and the outcomes of the cases are reported by the newspapers. There are situations where, say, Jim O'Callaghan of Rathmines will have been convicted of a very serious offence and that is reported in the newspaper. It is unquestionably the case that there are other people of the same name in the vicinity who might be concerned about the fact that they could be considered to be him. There are many ways by which we know it is not that person.

The issue Senator Harmon is seeking to resolve or address in her amendments is one that exists across the board at present. It is possible that people who have the same name as another person referred to in newspapers or written judgments of the courts can be, to use the wording here, "liable incorrectly to identify him or her as a convicted person". That can already happen. The remedy for a person in that situation is sometimes that he or she can write to a newspaper and say he or she is not the person but there is not really a remedy in terms of written judgments of the courts. That is why it is important that there be specificity within any judgment identifying a person.

The approach taken in the legislation is to specify a minimum amount of information required in every judgment, to include the perpetrator's name, age, residential address if appropriate, particulars of the offence and particulars of the penalty. Obviously, there would be more information in a judgment that would assist in determining who the specific person is. I stress that this is similar information to that routinely published in media reporting on offences without any objection. However, in delivering judgments, I anticipate that the court will go further in providing further context and background on the offence and the offender. All of this facilitates a process of identification in which the various individual pieces of data will allow identification of a specific person and, equally, preclude the erroneous identification of others.

I am confident that any possibility of confusion will be mitigated in this way. Overall, I am satisfied that the combination of the offender's name, age and, where appropriate, residential address, together with the other information necessarily contained in a written judgment, will provide sufficient information to identify an offender accurately. As such, I will not be accepting the amendment.

This is an issue that exists at present. One can have a written decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of a serious conviction. A person's name and his or her address will be contained within it. Issues can arise in respect of people with similar names. There is no remedy in this regard at present other than that most people are able to distinguish themselves. If there is any doubt, they are able to notify people that they are not the person concerned and that they have not been imprisoned or had any issue like that.

It is an issue that can exist where people share the same name from the same area. I do not know if there any Mark Dalys down in Kenmare. If there are, they may be confused with the Cathaoirleach. However, it is an issue. I will keep the legislation under the review, but the provision the Senator is proposing is going to make it very difficult. Regarding somebody with the same name as the convicted person and nobody thinks it is them other than they may believe it themselves, comes in and then we start getting annotations on the judgment. That would be a very complicated way of dealing with, what is at present, not an enormous problem in respect of reported judgments.

Is the Senator pressing her amendment?

Yes.

Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”.

The register is currently limited to indictable offences, including that of coercive control, and that is welcome. However, many cases of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence are also reflected across certain summary proceedings. For instance, while domestic violence orders originate in family law proceedings, a breach under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018, though at present solely summary, constitutes a criminal offence prosecuted within the criminal justice system. These breaches are critical indicators of escalating risk, particularly where repeated breaches occur and their exclusion may omit key information relevant to assessing ongoing dangers. That is why I am proposing that an offence under section 3 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 and offences under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act be included.

This proposal is confined to two specific offences that are uniquely indicative of ongoing repeated risk in domestic violence context rather than proposing a general expansion to summary offences. While breaches of domestic violence orders occur with some frequency, the inclusion of only those cases resulting in conviction and judicial consideration for publication ensures that the volume of published judgments remains controlled. I wish to draw attention to some personal experience of this. Where somebody commits a very serious assault or crime against a partner and, for summary, the Garda pursue the conviction, possibly for the attempt to kill or a section 4 assault, but then when it goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and due to plea bargaining or whatever, it is reduced to a section 3 or section 2 assault. While a reduced section 2 assault is a very serious assault, it is not included in the Bill. In that case, there should be some consideration given to including section 2 assaults where they have been plea bargained or reduced for that reason.

I thank the Senator for these three amendments. As she said, they seek to broaden the scope of the legislation to include a number of other offences that would trigger potential disclosure on the register of judgments. The other offences that she said should be included are assault where it is committed against an intimate partner, a breach of a protective order granted under the Domestic Violence Act and the recording, distributing or publishing of an intimate image without consent contrary to section 3 of the harmful communications Act. As she indicated, all of these are summary offences. Summary offences are offences that are tried in the District Court without a jury. They are supposed to be dealt with summarily and quickly. To be frank, they are less serious offences than indictable offences. That is how the legal system regards them.

I understand the rationale behind seeking to include these offences in the domestic violence register of judgments. These are offences that may be perpetrated by a domestic abuser. Such abuse may escalate to more serious acts of violence or it may not. It is nonetheless to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

However, as I outlined on Second Stage in the House, this legislation represents a new departure. It is novel legislation insofar as it gives a statutory power to the criminal courts in relation to delivering a judgment to be put on a register of judgments. This is not currently the practice in those courts, namely, the Circuit Criminal Court. It is for this reason that I have taken the decision to limit the scope of the legislation to indictable offences. These offences, by their nature, are at the most serious level of offending. The perpetrators of such offences are dangerous people. This measure will contribute to the identification of such abusers, providing knowledge that may make a material difference to someone's life.

I welcome Jason Poole to the Gallery. While I was reading that out, I was thinking of the circumstances of Jennifer Poole. The person who murdered her had convictions for previous serious indictable offences. Obviously, a situation like that, which has inspired the introduction of Jennie's law, is the type thing that we want to ensure is covered. It is covered.

During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, there were some recommendations made by the committee on justice. I expanded the scope of the Bill on foot of those recommendations. It now includes the offences of harassment, stalking and distributing or publishing an intimate image without consent. I say this simply to illustrate that I consider all recommendations and amendments and, where appropriate, I will take them on board. Nonetheless, I do not believe I should accept these amendments, which would include in the Bill summary offences. That is how they referred to. The legislation is novel and it remains to be seen how it will function in practice. It is also liable to be challenged. I have to keep a balance between rehabilitation - the proportionality between that - and the offences. If I was to include convictions for what are referred to technically within the legal system as minor offences - I am not saying that they are - then it could upset the equilibrium that I have been very careful to establish here.

This is introductory legislation. It is novel. I will keep a very close eye on it. I am open to reviewing and revisiting the legislation once it is up and running. It may be the case that I will come back in due course or whoever is the Minister for justice may come back with a proposal to add to the list of offences that trigger this legislation. In the future, that could include summary offences as opposed to just indictable offences. I would like to see how it operates first of all in respect of indictable offences and we can proceed from there in the future.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(ha) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018;”

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, line 31, after “2” to insert “or section 3”.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(14) The Courts Service shall ensure that, when the Register is made available to the public—

(a) a statement is included to the effect that the absence of a person’s name from the Register does not indicate that such person does not pose a risk or has not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse, and

(b) information is provided directing users to appropriate support services, including national and local domestic violence support services.”.”.

This amendment is looking for some sort of statutory disclaimer. The register may be seen by users as confirming that a person is safe if a specific name does not appear on the register. It is to ensure that the register is not misinterpreted and encourage users to seek advice and support in addition to the register. That is why I am proposing that this subsection be included.

Many people may have been found guilty of statutory offences. They may have had barring orders, protection orders or safety orders issued against them, and they may have breached those orders on numerous occasions, yet they will not be included in this register. They are dangerous individuals, though. The amendment is to ensure that people do not assume that, if a person is not on the register, they have not committed a serious crime.

I thank the Senator for this very useful amendment because it leads to an important discussion. It is clearly the case that, if somebody's name is not on the register, it does not therefore mean that there is no potential issue at all about a person with whom someone is in a relationship. Unfortunately, it is the case that most people who abuse women in Ireland after the enactment of this legislation will not be on the register because a lot it will happen for the first time.

Obviously, it may be the case as well that the register does not record every person who has committed violence against a partner in the past. It is worthwhile pointing out that the absence of a person's name does not indicate that such a person does not pose a risk or was not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse.

Like Senator Tully, I do not want to frighten everyone who is getting into a new relationship that the first thing you have to do is to run a check on the register, and if they are not on it you get a sense of relief. Certainly, if somebody was on a register and you started going out with them, you would need to consider that, but in the context of what is being proposed here, it is important that people are aware that there are limitations to the register. Obviously, I am mindful that those accessing the register may be doing do because they are experiencing domestic violence or because they are seeking information on behalf of someone who is. In such circumstances, it is important that users are provided with clear information about the supports and services available to victims of domestic violence.

While I will not accept the amendment, I do so on the basis that the provisions proposed are operational in nature. Certainly, that is something that could be put up on the website in terms of where the judgments are. The amendment is probably too granular to be provided for in primary legislation. Legislating at the level of operational detail could inadvertently reduce flexibility and create unnecessary operational constraints in the future.

That said, I fully support the objective underlying these amendments. I assure Senators that the development and placement of appropriate warnings, explanatory notices and signposting to relevant support services have already been considered in discussions between officials in my Department and the Courts Service during the preparation of this Bill. I agree that members of the public should be clearly informed of the scope and limitations of the register as well as the supports available to victims of domestic violence. I wish to make it clear that such information will be prominently displayed to individuals seeking to access the register.

As regards Senator Tully's concern, that information will clearly be made available to individuals who are accessing information on the website. I am rejecting the amendment, not because I disagree with the detail of it but because that level of detail is not required in primary legislation.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"(14) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to—

(a) the safety and wellbeing of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, and

(b) the safety and welfare of any children or dependents connected to the victim or the convicted person.".".

The publication of a judgment may in some cases increase risk to victims, particularly in situations involving children or when you have closely connected communities or ongoing contact with the abuser. At present, the Bill provides for judicial discretion but does not specify any factors to guide that decision to support greater consistency in decision-making across cases. That is the proposal, to include that "the safety and wellbeing of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm" and "the safety and welfare of any children or dependents connected to the victim or the convicted person" are taken into account before inclusion on the register.

I thank Senator Tully for the amendment. In many respects, the Senator's amendment is similar to the amendment that was put forward earlier by Senator Ruane, on which we had a decent debate.

As Senator Tully will be aware, the legislation provides the court with the discretion to order the inclusion of a judgment on the register. When considering whether to make an order or not, the judge will weigh up all the factors of the particular case. This will necessarily include the circumstances of the convicted person and the circumstances of the victim and of any child or children connected to the case. Considerations of safety and welfare will be paramount in the exercise of any such decision by a judge.

I am fully aware the courts are very much alive to the sensitivities of such cases. The Judicial Council Act provides a statutory basis for education and training of the Irish Judiciary. The Judicial Studies Committee exists, which is very important. It includes modules on procedural justice, courtroom dynamics, judicial conduct and ethics as well as unconscious bias. The committee further offers a series of education and training programmes to the entire Judiciary and they are very important.

We just look at the broad principle of legislation and see how it operates. When judges enter into office, when they are deciding a case or exercising a discretion such as will be available under this legislation is that they have to take into account all the circumstances of a particular case. We will not be aware of much of the detail. There could be factors that arise that none of us in this House has ever considered. That is why the Judiciary is mandated to exercise the judicial function in this State so that all those factors are taken into account in the interests of justice.

I thank the Senator for her amendment. I do not believe it is necessary. I believe all those factors will be taken into account by judges exercising the discretion that is available to them under this legislation.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Now.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Now.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank Senators for the manner in which they have dealt with this legislation. I again commend Jason Poole on really being the catalyst and driver of this legislation so that we can get this law, Jennie's law, through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

As I stated on the amendments that were discussed, it is a novel piece of legislation. I start from a premise that justice in Ireland is to be administered in public. People should have information available in respect of criminal convictions that happen in our courts. We are dealing here with our most serious courts, where there are indictable offences being heard and people are convicted of them. This legislation will provide a mechanism for judges to decide whether or not the judgment should be published and information should be available on serious criminal offences perpetrated by persons against intimate partners or former partners. There is a public benefit in that information being available. People are entitled to know what is happening in our courts. It is not possible for people to be fully aware of what is happening in our courts because there is such a breadth of work ongoing on a daily basis in the courts throughout Ireland and, in fairness, journalists cannot be expected to cover every case. I believe this process is an important start in ensuring that people can get more information about of indictable offences in respect of which there is a criminal conviction before our courts.

I thank Senators for their contribution. I value the discussion that we have had here. Once this legislation is enacted, we will learn from it. I have no doubt it will be necessary to come back to tweak it and to change it, or maybe to add to it, but it is important that we set the principle out that when people are convicted of serious offences by our courts there has to be a mechanism available in the context of intimate relationships here that people can get access to that information.

I echo the comments of the Minister in his summing up and thank all the Senators for their contributions, which have been constructive and thought-provoking. All the amendments have been given serious consideration by the Minister.

I thank and acknowledge Mr. Jason Poole for his contribution to this legislation. His family have been on a very difficult journey. The advocacy of Mr. Poole to get this legislation, Jennie's law, brought in has to be acknowledged and I commend him on it.

I commend the Minister on his initiative and his speed in bringing forward this legislation.

It will be a very important step for people to know that there is a register they can access if they have any concerns or doubts. I thank everybody involved.

I am thinking of all of the Poole family now. Jason has become someone that I know well at this stage. We have become friends. I am thinking in particular of Nevaeh, Jennie's daughter. Just before we came in, Jason was chatting about the family and where they are at. He said she had her last day in primary school and her graduation but it was a really difficult emotional day for her because she was one of the few there not to have her mam. That is a very difficult place for anyone to be in but Nevaeh can rest easy now, very sadly because of what her mother went through, but the legislation her uncle has championed with the complete and absolute support of the Minister and his team will hopefully mean other girls will not be in that position again. I firmly believe it is lifesaving.

I thank the Minister for his support the whole way through and for taking this on as a priority piece of legislation, together with Valerie's law. I bumped into David French again yesterday. It has become like a club – a sad one - but it is incredible when out of a place of huge grief, sadness and anger at what has happened positive legislation can be put in place. Adrian and Suzie on the Minister's team have been relentless in getting us here.

I thank all Senators for the way in which we have gotten through this business. Valid points were made, some of which we had discussed before. In particular given the Minister's background and experience, having legislation that is robust and implementable is the most important thing. He has committed to keeping a watching brief on how we go forward in relation to it. That is very much appreciated. The fact that the legislation can leave the Seanad and go to the Dáil for the next step in the process is very heartwarming.

I welcome this legislation. It is very important. I acknowledge Jason Poole and his family for their advocacy. They have gone through a terrible, traumatic event in their lives, as have so many other families. Unfortunately, the statistics this week show that the problem is still systemic. It is widespread. The more legislation that can be drafted and passed to address the issues of domestic violence, the better. I commend the Minister on bringing forward the Bill so quickly. We will all work together to try and get it through as quickly as possible. The Bill is very welcome.

Hear, hear.