Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 84.
“Amendment No. 82 makes a number of technical amendments to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020. It also repeals two redundant provisions of the 2020 Act. Amendment No. 83 amends the Criminal Justice (Perjury and Related Offences) Act 2021. It is a purely consequential amendment to take account of the proposed insertion in this Bill of a provision for statements of truth in criminal and international co-operation proceedings. Amendment No. 92 amends the long title consequential on amendments Nos. 82 and 83.”
“66 to 71, inclusive, deal with requests for PNR data held by the PIU from competent authorities in the State, PIUs in other EU countries, Europol and third countries, as well requests by the Irish PIU and other authorities. Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 deal with the retention periods for PNR data and maintenance of documentation by the PIU. Amendments Nos. 74 to 80, inclusive, insert chapter 7 of Part 17. It deals with transitional provisions. Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 insert Schedules 2, 3 and 4 into the Bill. Schedule 2 defines the data categories that make up the PNR data. Schedule 3 lists the competent authorities in the State that can request PNR data. Amendment No. 91 amends the Long Title consequential on these amendments.”
“62 provides for designation of all-intra EU flights unilaterally when the State is faced with a genuine and present or foreseeable terrorist threat, but only on approval by the High Court. Amendments Nos. 63 to 71, inclusive, deal with the transfer and exchange of PNR data. Amendment No. 63 refers to airlines’ obligations to transfer PNR data to the PIU a day before take-off. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 refer to the process undertaken by the PIU of assessing the transferred PNR data against serious crime or terrorism watchlists and pre-determined criteria to identify persons of interest due to take the flight or on-board. Amendments Nos.”
“This chapter relates to the Irish passenger information unit, its director, its data protection officer, other staff and its obligations as regards processing and reporting activities. Amendments Nos. 57 to 59, inclusive, insert Chapter 3. Amendment No. 57 provides for the competent authorities designated under the 2018 regulations to remain so designated. Amendment No. 58 provides that the Minister may designate a person as the “Independent Authority” for the purposes of the State’s PNR regime. Amendment No. 59 sets out the Data Protection Commission’s oversight function as regards this legislation. Amendments 60 to 62, inclusive, inserts new Chapter 4 of Part 17. The chapter provides for the designation by the PIU of individual intra-EU flights that will be encompassed by the State’s PNR regime. Amendment No.”
“Passenger name record data, PNR data, consists of booking information provided by passengers, which is collected by and held in the airlines’ reservation and departure control systems. This provision is already in place a result of Ireland's transposition of the PNR directive by way of the 2018 EU PNR data regulations, which established a unit within the Department of justice. The regulations apply the regime only to what are referred to as extra-EU flights, which is required by the directive. The purpose here is to apply them to internal EU flights as well. Amendments Nos. 46 to 50, inclusive, insert Chapter 1 of Part 17. They are standard legislative provisions that refer to a definition sections and such other matters. Amendment Nos. 51 to 56, inclusive, insert Chapter 2.”
“These amendments concern the use of electronic means. The main body of the amendments relate to passenger name records. I will briefly deal with amendments Nos. 43 to 45. These put in a new Part 17 relating to electronic technology in certain proceedings. Amendment No. 43 inserts a new section defining the types of proceedings in question. Amendments 44 and 45 insert two new sections to provide respectively that court rules may, in relation to such proceedings, make provision for the electronic transmission of documents. These amendments are modelled on equivalent legislation that is already in place in respect of civil proceedings. I will now turn to amendments Nos. 46 to 80, inclusive, 84 to 86, inclusive, and 91. These relate to passenger name record data. They propose the insertion of a new Part 17.”
“38 amends section 60 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil to broaden the matters to which the Minister must have regard before forming an initial view that a disregard should be revoked. Amendment No. 42 inserts a new subsection into section 61 in order to make express provision for the Minister to proceed with revoking a disregard where the applicant has not requested a review of the proposed revocation within the allotted timeframe or the Minister reasonably considers such a request to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unfounded.”
“These are the amendments in respect of the disregard section of the Bill, which is Part 15. Amendments Nos. 30 to 36, inclusive, and 39 to 41, inclusive, are minor textual amendments to make certain terms and references clearer and more precise. The purpose of the remaining amendments is to make the provisions relating to the revocation of a disregard clearer and more robust, including certain procedural steps that could otherwise be regarded as implicit. Amendment No. 37 inserts a new section obliging a relevant public body to make the Minister aware if it becomes aware of information indicating that a disregard may have been granted on foot of false or misleading information. Amendment No.”
“I presume that was because the offence in that case predated the new legislation brought in requiring oral evidence in respect of references in cases of sexual offences. As a result of the amendment, this provision will now cover all indictable offences.”
“It will still be the case that people will be able to wear face masks for religious and cultural reasons and, even at a protest, people will still be able to wear a face mask. They may not want people to know they are there. The only time this public order offence would be triggered is in circumstances where a person is seeking to intimidate other people or it is likely a person's behaviour will intimidate them. Amendment No. 89 amends the Long Title.”
“It is a limited addition to the public order framework, which may be exercised only in specific circumstances. The amendment provides that, where a member of An Garda Síochána suspects with reasonable cause that a person is acting in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension about public safety or for the maintenance of public peace and that the person is wearing the face covering with intent to intimidate another person or in a manner likely to intimidate another person, the garda may direct that person to desist from the conduct, remove the face covering and leave the vicinity. An offence only arises where a person "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse" fails to comply with that Garda direction.”
“22 inserts in its place a new stand-alone provision, which is substantively the same, but is more precisely drafted and contains a transitional provision. Amendment No. 21, therefore, repeals that provision to prevent duplication on the Statute Book. Amendment No. 23 inserts a new Part into the Bill to amend the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 to address a specific public order issue, which is the deliberate use of face coverings for intimidatory purposes in public places, and particularly at protests. I stress that this is not a ban on face coverings, nor a ban on wearing face coverings at protests, nor does it create a general power for An Garda Síochána to require a person wearing a face covering in public to remove it.”
“These amendments, in fairness to Deputy Carthy, arise as a result of an amendment he tabled on Committee Stage and Report Stage in the Dáil. I accepted his amendment, which inserts a new section into the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to provide that where a person is convicted of any indictable offence, character evidence for sentencing purposes must be given on oath or by affidavit. That amendment was included as section 17 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil. The purpose of amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 is to tighten up the drafting and address a number of drafting and consequential matters arising. Amendment No. 20 deletes the existing section 23 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil and amendment No.”
“Amendment No. 19 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984. It inserts new subsections (2) to (6) into section 10 to provide a statutory basis for the admissibility of certificates of results of Garda-administered presumptive drug testing, PDT. It introduces a legal presumption in favour of the evidential value of such certificates subject to rebuttal evidence. Amendment No. 29 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 154 of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014 to allow the director of Forensic Science Ireland to delegate his or her functions under the amended section 10 of the 1984 Act to appropriate officers of FSI. Amendments Nos. 88 and 90 amend the Long Title consequential on the addition of these amendments.”
“The proposed further amendments provide for the revocation at any time of a nomination to act as chair of the board or the judicial conduct committee and for a cessation of effect of nominations for a judge performing the functions of the Chief Justice.”
“These amendments relate to the non-judicial role of the Chief Justice. Amendment No. 9 deals with section 6 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil. It amends section 67 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, which provides for the superior courts rules committee to allow the Chief Justice to nominate an ordinary judge of the Supreme Court. These changes are being introduced to reduce the non-judicial workload of the Chief Justice and the respective courts. Amendments Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive, amend section 8 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil which amends sections 12 and 44 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 in relation to the membership of the board of the Judicial Council and the judicial conduct committee.”
“5 amends section 3(6) of the 1926 Act to ensure that the general prohibition on the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence from ComReg does not apply to a radio frequency jammer kept by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of working or using it in accordance with the proposed new sections 12(1B) and 12B(1B) of the 1926 Act. Amendments No. 7 and 8 are consequential in nature. At present, sections 12 and 12B of the 1926 Act provide for offences and monetary penalties for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to interfere with other such apparatus which would at present apply to An Garda Síochána if it used this equipment. Amendment No. 87 amends the Long Title of the Bill to reference the amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926.”
“These amendments relate to the authority of An Garda Síochána to deploy radio frequency jammers to counteract drones. I am advised that these legislative amendments are necessary to confirm that An Garda Síochána has the legal powers where necessary and proportionate to deal with dangerous or hostile drone activity through the use of what are called “radio frequency jammers”. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are technical in nature and simply deal with references to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. Amendment No.”
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule. Other operational criminal justice agencies such as the Irish Prison Service, the Probation Service and Forensic Science Ireland, being under the direct aegis of my Department, are already specified bodies under the Schedule. The Legal Aid Board is also a specified body. Amendment No. 81 proposes to further amend Schedule 5 to the 2005 Act in order to add the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, as a specified body and to remove the current restriction on An Garda Síochána, whereby it is a specified body only in relation to its own members. Critically, this amendment will also facilitate the development of a unique identifier across the criminal justice system.”
“Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 81 have been grouped and I will speak to them together. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the commencement of the Bill and amend section 1(4), which provides for said commencement. Currently, provision is made for all provisions to be commenced by ministerial order, with certain listed exceptions which are to come into effect on enactment. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 amend section 1(4) to provide for the following provisions of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, to come into effect on enactment: subsections (1) and (4) of section 1, section 4(b)(i), section 43, section 69, insofar as it relates to the Courts Service, section 70, section 74 and Parts 3 and 4, along with the Part to be inserted that amends the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926. I will now turn to amendment No. 81.”
“71, in respect of the inserted subsection (8) of section 93, I ask that the Clerk be directed to change the cross-referenced subsection from "subsection (4)" to "subsection (5)". It will now read "where the Independent Authority revokes an authorisation under subsection (5)".”
“52, in respect of the inserted subsection (5) of section 74, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert the word "shall" in between the word "staff" and the term "be accountable". It will now read "the member of staff shall be accountable". In Seanad amendment No. 57, in respect of the inserted subsection (1) of section 79, I ask that the Clerk be directed to remove the comma after the term "Schedule 4". In Seanad amendment No. 68, in respect of the inserted subsection (3)(a)(1) of section 90, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert the term "purpose of" after the term "necessary for the". It will now read, "the transfer of the data to the competent authority is necessary for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating". In Seanad amendment No.”
“Before we start, a number of typographical errors that have been identified in the Bill, as amended by the Seanad. Pursuant to Standing Order 203, I request the Ceann Comhairle to direct the Clerk to make the following corrections of a typographical nature to the Bill. In Seanad amendments Nos. 46, 57, 68, 84 and 85, in respect of the inserted subsection (6)(b) of section 68, subsection (1) of section 79, subsection (2) of section 90, item 19 of Schedule 2 and item 1 of Schedule 3, respectively, I ask that the Clerk be directed to change the word "listed" to "specified" wherever it occurs. In Seanad amendment No. 46, in respect of the inserted subsection (6) of section 68, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert a closing bracket after the term "arrival time". In Seanad amendment No.”
“I recognise the presence of David French and of Valerie French's family. I commend and thank them and acknowledge the enormous work they did in campaigning for this. This change to the law was recommended in a report on familicide back in 2023. David French absorbed it, ran with it and campaigned for it. I met him in a television studio in January 2025. I gave him a commitment that I would seek to change the law through the Houses of the Oireachtas and now this is done. I commend him and the family of Valerie French for their fortitude and commitment to public service by seeking this change in the law.”
“The policy intention behind the new section 12G is that the proceedings to which it refers will be heard primarily in the District Court. When the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act 2024 are commenced, these proceedings will be heard in the family district court. The intention is the same as in the Bill as initiated, but I am advised that this form of words will better accomplish the goal.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill. The fifth amendment was, again, a technical amendment ensuring that we apply the provisions of the 1991 Act relating to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to proceedings heard under the new Part. The only substantive change was that the new drafting ensured that the guardian ad litem can be reappointed both where there is a review of an order, as set out in the order itself, and where a review of the order takes place under the proposed new section 12E. This amendment applies the rules of that service to the new proceedings and makes clear how they work in this context.”
“That memorial is very evident in this legislation, which will be on our Statute Book for very many years. I commend them on and thank them for their great public service in advocating for this law.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad. I thank colleagues in this House for their support on this legislation. I thank officials in my Department for their tireless work in respect of ensuring that we navigate this legislation through the Houses and get the drafts as appropriately as possible to ensure that they balance all the conflicting rights we have spoken about. I thank Jason Poole and the Poole family and commend them on their resilience and determination in wanting to leave a permanent memorial to their beloved Jennie.”
“They routinely evaluate risks and the courts are aware of the sensitivities involved in domestic violence cases. The judicial studies committee delivers specialised workshops on topics such as this in order to train judges on how they should exercise their discretion. For these reasons, notwithstanding the point it makes, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.”
“Again, it is an important point that Deputy Carthy makes but it is also important to note that the court will have discretion to decide whether a judgment should be included in the register. Those factors that are set out in Deputy Carthy's amendment will certainly be given consideration by a judge in exercising that discretion. Any judge exercising that discretion will access all of the circumstances of the case, including the situation of the offender, the victim and any child connected to the matter. Issues of safety and welfare will be central to that assessment. Domestic violence cases often involve ongoing risks and complex dynamics. The court's responsibility is to ensure that victims and children are protected from further harm. In fairness, judges do this on a daily basis.”
“I assure Deputies that this information will be prominently displayed for anyone accessing the register. The effect of what Deputy Carthy seeks to do will be embedded in the register when it is up and running in the Courts Service.”
“Deputy Carthy makes a very important point. It is important that people do not assume that someone has no domestic violence convictions simply because their name does not appear on the register of judgments. That is a point that has to be emphasised. While I cannot accept the amendment, this is because the level of operational detail proposed is not suitable for primary legislation. Embedding such granular requirements in statute could actually limit flexibility and create unnecessary constraints as the system develops. However, in this context, in light of Deputy Carthy's amendment and other concerns, officials in my Department and the Courts Service have already discussed the provision of warnings, explanatory notes and clear signposting to domestic violence support services.”
“There will be a post-enactment review after one year under Dáil Standing Orders and the Standing Orders of the Seanad. That will be done. I am conscious people will be raising the issue here with me. I will not accept the amendment but there will be a requirement for me to come back to produce a post-enactment report within 12 months.”
“I know Deputy Gannon's concern is in respect of children of people who are victims of domestic violence. However, for the purpose of the operation of the 2018 Act as a whole and for this new provision, it is important to limit it as we have in the legislation, which is to intimate partner, spouse or civil partner.”
“I have deliberately adopted this language in the provisions in this part of the legislation in order to ensure consistency within the legislation as this definition is now being embedded in case law, operational guidance and front-line practice. If I were to accept Deputy Gannon's amendment, which would introduce a broader definition into the Bill, it would undermine the coherence of existing provisions. It would mean that the same term appearing within the same legislative framework would carry two different meanings in two different areas. That is not good practice and would risk confusion. That is why I think it important that we maintain a single, stable definition of relevant person across the Domestic Violence Act and legislation.”
“I thank the Deputy for his amendment. The legislation we are discussing today is proposing to insert a new section into the Domestic Violence Act 2018. This will be the section referred to as the domestic violence register of judgments. That means this part of the legislation has to be consistent with the Domestic Violence Act 2018 in general. That Act already refers to relevant persons in the offence of coercive control and in specifying the circumstances in which a relationship should be treated as an aggravating factor in offending. In both cases, the Oireachtas deliberately confined the definition to a current or former spouse or intimate partner.”
“If a court was satisfied that the person had gone through treatment and reformed themselves - maybe there were major addiction issues or other issues in their lives that they had overcome and there was evidence to a court to suggest that the threat that had been there when they were put on the register was no longer there – that is a factor that I have to give some recognition to - not a huge amount, but some. It is important in terms of balancing the conflicting interests in the legislation.”
“The most important thing is for us to get this up and running and it to be effective. As Deputy McAuliffe said, it would reduce its effectiveness if it was the case that it was moved out to five years after release from prison. You could have been in prison for ten years and then you would have to wait for five years. On Deputy Gannon’s comments, the point I was making about rehabilitation was that going on the register was obviously not a form of punishment, but we have to recognise that an individual may be reformed and may have changed from the person they were when they committed the offence that led to them being put on the register.”
“-----and it involved getting a lot of different views and advices. I remember a lot of coverage a year ago where lots of groups were opposed to this and it was all about the issues that could arise in respect of it. I have managed to get a balancing area - a landing area - that has the support of the House, which is the most significant thing, and has also enabled me to get advice from the Attorney General telling me that we can proceed with this. As Deputy McAuliffe mentioned a few moments ago, what I do not want to do is find that, when a judge is deciding whether to add somebody’s judgment to the register, they say that the person will not be able to bring an application for five years after their conviction or after they are released. It is a question of balancing it.”
“I thank colleagues for their contributions. As Deputies know, I have no difficulty accepting amendments from colleagues in this House if I believe they are correct and beneficial to the legislation. I have done it before and will do it again. I hear what Deputy Kelly says but collegiality does not come into it. We can be very collegial but when it comes to legislation, I cannot just decide that I want to be friendly with people in the House and, so, I will accept the amendment.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register. It allows that to be done either three years after he is released from prison or, if he is not imprisoned, three years after the conviction. To be absolutely clear, the expiry of the three-year period does not entitle a person to get off the register. Most people will stay on this indefinitely. The only time a person can get off it is if they bring an application which is successful. What happens at present is that I am allowing them, after three years, to make an application. The final decision, and the responsibility for ensuring it is the right one, rests with the court.”
“What Deputy Carthy's amendment proposes is that we say that they cannot bring the application until five years. In practical terms, the court will have to be satisfied in any event, based on evidence that is put before it, that the person is no longer a threat. I know it is not something we are discussing here, and others mentioned this when legislation was mooted, but I have to give consideration to the possibility of rehabilitation. I know that is not something that is relevant in very many cases but I have to give consideration, as Minister, to the possibility of rehabilitation. I have to have regard for proportionality in the context of this Bill. This is new legislation.”
“The default position is that the judgment stays on the register. There is nothing in the scheme to remove the judgment from the register. The only way that the scheme affects that is that it allows a person, three years after they have been released from prison, to bring an application to have their name removed. That means that they have to go into open court and bring the application. They have to satisfy a judge that it is appropriate that they be removed. It may be the case that the judge will refuse the relief that they are seeking. In order to do that, they will have to set out some convincing evidence to the court that will satisfy it that it believes this person is no longer the threat that resulted in them being put on the register in the first place.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for putting down this amendment. I will start by disagreeing with him, however. I disagree with him when he says that the bar is incredibly high for the triggering of this statutory scheme. That is not correct. If the Deputy looks at the legislation, he will see 17 offences will trigger the scheme. Seventeen pieces of legislation or 17 convictions that will trigger it. These are convictions that are happening in Circuit Criminal Courts, and, to a lesser extent, Central Criminal Courts, on a continuous basis. It is not correct to say that the bar is incredibly high. The issue here is that if somebody receives one of these convictions, and the scheme is triggered and the judgment is published on the register, if that person gets a term of imprisonment, they cannot apply for it to be removed.”
“Colleagues will be aware that I provide a huge amount of funding to Cuan, which in turn provides it to those agencies. It is important to point out that these organisations make a valuable contribution. However, that recognition does not mean that every aspect of their work should be written into legislation. The amendments proposed raise significant practical concerns. It is simply not clear how a court could determine whether a victim had received "sufficient information and access to appropriate supports", nor is there an objective standard for what constitutes informed and safe decision-making. I understand the intentions but I think the language is too vague and subjective and would create uncertainty rather than the clarity that we all want.”
“Where the family of a deceased victim has views on whether a judgment should be included in the register, attention will of course be paid to those views by the judge, and that is something that the judge will be able to consider. I now turn to Deputy Carthy's amendments Nos. 2 and 4. These relate to the victim's consent, ensuring that it is freely and voluntarily given. They specify that the court must be satisfied that the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable them to make that decision. I am not going to accept these amendments either. We all agree that specialist domestic violence services are indispensable, and they are available.”
“However, putting specifically into statute, as Deputy Gannon has suggested, that there has to be consultation with the family of the victim is difficult from the point of view of a court. The court is the one that is exercising its discretion as to whether the judgment should be published. Deputy Gannon's amendment states, "the court shall, after consultation with the family". It is unusual in legislation to talk about a court having consultation with the family. I know the purpose of it but there is a mechanism for the family to be heard. I think it would be inappropriate to include that in the Bill. As well as that, families are not always unified in their approach to a particular issue. We need to be much more specific in respect of what "family" means.”
“I thank Deputies Carthy and Gannon for their amendments. Deputy Gannon's amendment seeks to cover a situation where the victim is deceased, so it is either a case of murder or manslaughter. In that instance, the provision as it is at present, in subsection (4), states, "In relation to subsection (2)(d), where the victim is deceased, it shall be at the discretion of the court as to whether a judgment is to be included in the Register." When it comes to a court case where somebody has been convicted of murder or manslaughter, obviously there will be an opportunity for a victim impact statement for the family members. Family will always be able to express their view.”
“I want to be respectful to Deputies Gannon and Carthy but if we go down the route of putting in District Court summary convictions this is going to become unmanageable. It is appropriate to leave this on indictable offences, convictions on indictment and then the discretionary mechanism is available to the court. I say with great respect to Deputies Gannon and Carthy that it is not a good idea to include a vast array of offences. It will undermine the effectiveness of the scheme.”
“If we look at the convictions in this legislation that will trigger the mechanism for disclosure, we see that it includes a vast array of offences. As I said earlier on, obviously it covers murder, manslaughter, rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, but then it also covers non-fatal strangulation causing harm, non-fatal strangulation causing serious harm, assault causing harm, assault causing serious harm, threats to kill, harassment, endangerment, false imprisonment, coercive control and the spreading of intimate images. There is a whole variety of convictions there that will trigger the statutory scheme under this.”