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 15 of 84.
“I am not dismissing Deputy Carthy's proposed amendment because it is coming from him. I listen carefully to what he says and what other colleagues contribute. We want to get this right. I must be honest with the Deputy in the House about what I think the consequence of his amendment would be. It is true that there is no definition for who is the next of kin. The first thing a court will do when it is mandated by the legislation to put on notice the next of kin is to ask who the next of kin is. Is it all the siblings of the deceased guardian or does it extend only to certain among them? We need to be precise and will be criticised by the courts if we do not define this accurately. The Deputy raises the valid point that families want to be involved in this.”
“The court may say it does not need to turn this into a family row among the remaining relatives of the deceased guardian, with a number of them in court saying that they want the children to remain within the guardianship of the convicted guardian while another part of the family is saying they want to guardianship rights of the convicted guardian taken away. We must recognise that there will not always be harmony within a family in terms of what should happen at the outcome and the provision that I have included at section 12I is, to use Deputy Carthy's words, better wording, and that is what we should stick to.”
“It would impose a barrier, and I know the Deputy does not want to put in place barriers. It would impose a barrier to bringing an application in a speedy manner and would not provide any additional benefit for the child concerned. As I say, I believe the provisions that are set out in section 12I, which deals with notice parties to proceedings under this Part, are sufficient. The guardians must be put on notice. A relative can seek the leave of the court to be put on notice. It does not mean that the court is going to, on each occasion, say that person will be granted leave to be heard in the case.”
“It may in some circumstances be difficult to identify or locate such people as the next of kin. There is a requirement to put them on notice. Like me, Deputy Carthy wants to ensure that these applications are heard as soon as practicable. If it is the case that Tusla is required to put every next of kin on notice, what happens in circumstances where a next of kin, say a sibling of the deceased guardian, lives in Australia or elsewhere outside the jurisdiction? That will, in effect, mean that the District Court hearing the application will say there is a statutory obligation and the Oireachtas has determined that the next of kin must be put on notice. If one of the people who are the next of kin is living in Australia, the application could not proceed until such time as that person has been put on notice of the application.”
“Even if it were the case that I was to accept the Deputy's amendment, if it were precise, we must think of the difficulties that could arise in circumstances where all the next of kin of a deceased guardian of a child would be put on notice. Let us use an example where the mother of the child or children is the victim and, regrettably, that is predominantly the case. In such circumstances, is it the case that Tusla will have to put on notice every sibling of that deceased person? What about her parents and grandparents? It is not defined as to who should be put on notice. The reality is that in a particular family, it may be the case that the next of kin of the deceased has no relationship with the deceased or their child. Alternatively, a next of kin may have a very close relationship with the convicted guardian.”
“When it comes to the relative, defined in section 12I, I have specified who a relative is for the purpose of making such an application. Section 12 I(3) states, "In subsection (2) ‘relative’, in relation to the child concerned, means a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt, whether of the whole blood, half blood or by affinity, and includes the spouse of any such person and any person cohabiting with any such person." Under the provision I have, a relative can apply to be put on notice and can seek the leave of the court to be joined. Under the Deputy's proposal, there is a statutory requirement to be imposed on Tusla to put on notice the undefined next of kin. It is not possible for me to accept such a vague and ill-defined amendment.”
“The legislation before us also provides in section 12I(ii), "A relative of the child concerned may seek leave to be joined as a notice party to proceedings under this Part." If a relative becomes aware that Tusla is bringing such an application, that application will obviously be on notice to the guardians of the child who are living and a relative can nonetheless still apply to the court to be made a notice party to the proceedings. I am concerned that the Deputy's amendment could give rise to a lot of contentious and difficult circumstances during the hearing of the application. What the Deputy wants to introduce is a requirement that Tusla would have to notify the next of kin of a deceased guardian of that child. It is important to set out that there is no definition of who is the next of kin within the Deputy's amendment.”
“I thank the Deputy for his amendment. I do have a better type of wording and it is set out in section 12I of the legislation. The section is entitled "Notice parties to proceedings under this Part". Section 12I(i) states, "An application to the court for an order under this Part shall not be made in relation to the child concerned other than on notice to each guardian of that child". Whether it is an application in circumstances where the victim guardian is still alive, and that can happen, an application must be made to that victim guardian or, indeed, to any other guardian who is available. It will obviously have to be served on notice to the convicted guardian as well.”
“That is the primary focus of it. It arises in the context of the criminal justice system reaching a certain determination but the provision in the legislation is about protecting children. If I deviate from that and start focusing on matters other than children, we are going to get ourselves into legal difficulties.”
“We had a good discussion about this on Committee Stage. I note what Deputy Carthy is trying to do but I have to stick with what I have in terms of the six months and the statutory requirement. The last thing any of us in the House want is for an application to be challenged in the courts by a person who is convicted and who says it is an extra penalty being imposed on them, that they are a person who has been convicted of murder or manslaughter and is being treated differently from others who have been convicted of murder or manslaughter because an extra penalty is being imposed upon them, namely, the removal of their guardianship rights. I have to take this into account. The reason the Minister for children is sitting beside me and is so supportive of the legislation is that it is about protecting children.”
“I know in due course this afternoon we will be discussing amendments from Deputy Carthy on other family members being permitted to bring an application. This would create a very contentious and difficult scenario for the family and the children in certain circumstances. This is a public law issue. Because of this, the public statutory body responsible for the protection of children is the appropriate entity to bring the application. For this reason I respectfully say I cannot agree to Deputy Carthy's first amendment.”
“It could determine in this situation and in this context that it would not be appropriate to bring an application because the mother of the children should remain as the guardian. In such circumstances it would be inappropriate for such an application to be made. For this reason I cannot accept the amendment, notwithstanding that we all agree with the sentiment that we want applications such as this to be brought as soon as is reasonably practicable. I cannot remove the second limb of the triggering test, which is the requirement for Tusla to be satisfied that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her duty towards the children. Tusla is the Child and Family Agency and it is the appropriate entity to bring such an application.”
“I agree with virtually everyone here that in the vast majority of circumstances where an individual guardian has been convicted of murder or manslaughter of another guardian and there are children, this is in itself a child protection issue and the person who is convicted has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned. To use the example that Deputy Carthy gave a few moments ago, which is present in one of his forthcoming amendments, say there was a situation where a female guardian who had repeatedly been subjected to domestic violence was prosecuted for murder or manslaughter and was convicted. There could be situations where Tusla, as the party bringing the application, could look to see who else was a potential guardian of the children.”
“It is important, as I have stated repeatedly, that this provision is not perceived as being a penalty imposed on a guardian who is convicted of manslaughter or murder. That is not the purpose of it. If it were the purpose, challenges would be brought to it on grounds of equality. The purpose is to trigger an application in circumstances where there is a conviction of a guardian of the murder or manslaughter of another guardian and there is a belief that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned.”
“It will have to provide evidential proof of the conviction by way of the order from the Central Criminal Court. It will take a bit of time to do this. It will also need to put before the court evidence that it states is necessary to show that the second requirement for the implication of the application has been met, which is that the convicted parent has failed in his or her obligation to the child. This brings me to the second part of Deputy Carthy's amendment, which is that he seeks to remove from the consideration the test that Tusla must be satisfied the convicted guardian has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned. The reason this is included, and I emphasised this on Committee Stage, is based on the constitutional threshold for State intervention in the family.”
“My concern is that by changing the statutory limitation from six months to three months I will find myself in a situation where the Child and Family Agency will recognise that it cannot get all of the material before the courts within the three months and we will encourage applications for extensions of time. As Deputy Carthy is aware, under the legislation such applications for an extension of time are permitted and sometimes they may be necessary. My concern is that if we limit it so tightly to three months, there will necessarily be constant immediate applications for extensions. It is also important to point out that when it comes to making this application it will, presumably, be an application that is made on affidavit by Tusla, in which it will have to set out the basis for the application.”
“It seeks to amend section 12C, which at present, under the draft that was approved on Committee Stage, requires the Child and Family Agency to bring an application as soon as practicable but not later than six months after the conviction of the person for manslaughter or murder. Deputy Carthy's amendment wishes to amend this so that it states "3 months". I cannot accept the amendment because I believe the statutory provision that is there at present is fairly clear to the Child and Family Agency. It requires it to bring an application as soon as practicable. This requires it to move with considerable expediency and the timeline limit on which the application can be made is six months.”
“Like my colleagues, I too welcome Mr. David French to the Gallery. I commend him on his perseverance and the encouragement he has provided, not only to me in terms of trying to ensure the legislation could be introduced to the Houses of the Oireachtas but also in terms of the encouragement and support to other Members of the House. It is unusual to have legislation that is universally supported. I am very conscious Members are perfectly entitled to put down amendments but it is unusual to have legislation that is so universally supported. This is in no small part due to the presence and campaigning of David French. I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment, which seeks to do two things.”
“The story of Jennifer Poole is really what influenced this legislation, in the same way as the story of Valerie French influenced the guardianship of infants legislation.”
“Also, I regret to say, and I know this from the Garda, it is increasing the level of violence that is being used in sexual assaults. There are huge issues out there for the Members of this House, the Government and the Dáil in terms of trying to respond to the real threat that is posed, predominantly to women and girls, through violence within relationships. I believe this Bill is a small but important legislative development. I thank Senators for their support. I will conclude where I started by commending Jason Poole and Joe Poole on being here today and Jason on his continuous commitment. Legislation and politicians react to human stories and what has happened in human life.”
“It is a start where these Houses are recognising that there is a constitutional mandate for justice to be administered in public, and this is building on that. A number of Senators mentioned broader issues. There are a huge number of issues that are influencing and affecting violence against women and girls. Senator Mullen and others mentioned the level of violence and extreme pornography that is online at present. What that is doing is distorting the development of the sexuality of younger people. It is making them think that what they are seeing online is somehow the normal way that people engage in their sexual relationships. That is having a very distorting impact on the sexual development of young men and young women.”
“I would prefer to start cautiously and then move to expand it more, rather than start in a very expansive way and then be challenged before the courts, perhaps successfully challenged. However, it is something that needs to be considered. Senator Stephenson referred to summary convictions. At present, I am limiting it to the convictions that are set out in the Bill. I am conscious that we do not want to inundate the system with a large number of judgments. It is important that we start this, see how it develops and see what types of judgments are coming out of it. I have no doubt that, in time, people will say that we can improve this legislation by doing something else. However, the start is a significant point for us.”
“It is the start of a legislative process of ensuring that we try to make available more of the information to which people are entitled. It will ensure that, in a case like the tragic incident that happened to Jennifer Poole, if a judge sees there is a serious conviction and the court believes the person is a threat and a danger, in order to protect other persons, he or she, as a judge, can deliver a judgment identifying the person, and it is publicly available. That is an important development. I also note the reference to the three-year period. I will give consideration to this issue. I need to ensure, though, that this is not something that is going to be challenged.”
“In fairness to journalists, they cannot cover all courts, and even if they could, not all of them would be reported. I have listened very carefully to what Senators had to say, in particular the points raised by Senators Kelleher, Stephenson and Cosgrove. As Senator Cosgrove said, this is not a silver bullet. Any time that a judgment is published on the Courts Service register, it will be publicly available. However, just because somebody is listed does not mean that there are not others who have been convicted but are not listed. The reality is that not everyone who is convicted will be on it. Nor would I like a message to go out so that people would think, "Oh, my new partner is not on the register and therefore everything is fine". We need to realise that this is not going to solve every issue.”
“As we all know, one of the few areas where there is an exception to the administration of justice in public is family law, where you are not allowed to attend out of a legitimate and understandable requirement to protect the identity of people before the courts. There is an issue in terms of providing basic information to which people are entitled. Any member of the public can go into a court on any day of the week. They can sit at the back at any prosecution for assault causing serious harm. They can sit there and watch the judgment. They can find out that a person has been convicted of assaulting their partner and they can talk about it. Unfortunately, we are dependent to a large extent on finding out about this through journalism.”
“It recognises for the first time that we are giving a statutory power to the courts to say that when it comes to certain types of convictions by the criminal courts, a judgment can be prepared and delivered which will be put on the register of judgments as provided for in this legislation. That is an important departure and will be beneficial. Many Senators referred to other types of offences that should be included within it. The most important thing to say about this legislation is that it only kicks in on conviction of a criminal offence. It is not going to arise, nor could it arise, in respect of breaches of orders that arise in family law proceedings.”
“What is happening frequently throughout the country is that the decisions and convictions are being imposed, and people do not get to hear about them. If people go online and try to find out about them in a similar way to the reserved judgments that can be accessed, they will not be able to find reserved convictions or reserved orders. The only way they will find out that somebody has been convicted in a Circuit Criminal Court of a serious offence, or an offence causing serious harm against a partner, is if a journalist happened to be in court and reported it. It is a major failing in our system that justice, which is being administered in public, is not really available to the public in the same way as other types of cases are if they have a reserved judgment. This Bill marks a significant change in direction.”
“In general, we do not get reserved judgments in respect of that. My view, and I know it is the view of everyone here, is that since the Constitution says that justice shall be administered in public, it is important that we know what is happening in our criminal courts. Regrettably, because of the growth of the courts system and the growth of our population, it is not possible for journalists to be reporting on what is happening in every Circuit Criminal Court in the country. It is simply not tenable for that to happen. We have a very busy Central Criminal Court sitting in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. That is where most of the media attention is, and that is the reportage that we see in general on the news at nighttime.”
“The reason this applies is that if a person is being prosecuted for serious assault causing harm, and if they are convicted, that is going to happen in the Circuit Criminal Courts around the country. The only way that we become aware of that is through the reportage of it by persons who were in court, such as journalists. At the end of every criminal case, there is no written judgment of a judge in the same way as there would be in a civil action in the High Court. If there is a case in the High Court and the parties are heard, the judge will reserve judgment in many instances, and we will then see a written judgment. In the Circuit Criminal Court, if somebody is convicted of serious assault causing harm, there is no judgment but there is the finding of the jury, and then there is the sentencing by the judge.”
“This is a choice that we in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and I, as Minister, are making to decide that this is a change of the direction that we wish to go in our criminal justice system. It is important legislation, notwithstanding the fact that it is concise. We can understand the need for this. On the Courts Service website at present, there is a section for judgments. After clicking into that, one can see judgments from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and some from the Circuit Court. What is noticeable is that, in respect of the vast majority of judgments, none of them relate to criminal matters unless they are criminal cases that have been appealed to the Court of Appeal.”
“I thank all Senators for their contributions and, more importantly, for their support. It was mentioned that I started this legislation in the Seanad. I do not want to be unfair to the Lower House, of which I am a Member, but sometimes in the Seanad we get a more considered and non-political response. That is certainly what I have got this evening, and I will take on board what has been said by Senators from all parties and none. I acknowledge the role of Senator Fiona O'Loughlin and Deputy Paul McAuliffe, who put constant pressure on me. It is important that pressure is there. Sometimes it is easier not to legislate unless there is an absolute requirement for it.”
“It is at the discretion of the trial judge whether to publish a judgment, which must include details of conviction and sentence, as well as the name, age and address, where available, of the abuser. The judge in a case is best placed to determine whether the publication of a judgment is warranted, given the particular circumstances of each case. It is also open to the judge to omit the residential address of the perpetrator where it is not considered appropriate to publish this information. I want to stress that a judgment may only be published where the victim gives their consent. Such consent is a prerequisite to publication. I am very aware that domestic and sexual abuse trials are difficult for victims. They have had the courage to stand up to their abuser and secure a conviction in respect of the violence perpetrated against them.”
“The register encompasses serious offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and sexual assault. In addition, a number of indictable offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, such as assault causing harm and serious harm, harassment and stalking are covered. Coercive control under section 39 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 also comes within the scope of the legislation as well as distributing, publishing or threatening to distribute or publish an intimate image without consent under Coco’s Law. In short, the register will capture these extremely serious crimes where they are committed by a partner or a former partner, usually, but not always, a man, against a victim, usually, but not always, a woman.”
“The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the publication of judgments relating to serious domestic violence offences, ensuring that these are effectively publicised as part of the trial process. A publicly available register of judgments will assist people who are in a relationship or considering a relationship with a person to ascertain whether they have a history of serious domestic violence convictions. Let me turn now to the provisions of the Bill itself, which I wish to outline for the House. Section 1 amends the Domestic Violence Act 2018 by inserting a new Part 3A into that Act. This new Part 3A provides that the Courts Service will establish and maintain a register of judgments. This will be known as the domestic violence judgments register and it will be available on the courts.ie website.”
“I want to take this opportunity to affirm that the legislation they have worked so hard for will be known as Jennie’s law in memory of this cherished young woman. Jennie’s law is a short, simple legislation but legislation that is a key component of the work we, as legislators, are undertaking to keep individuals safe. It is a fundamental principle of Irish law that justice should be done in public. As it stands, there may be journalists present in courtrooms to report on such cases. However, equally and regrettably, there may not be. It should not be the case that serious incidents of domestic or sexual violence, assault or abuse go unnoticed or unreported.”
“I am determined that this legislation will be enacted before the summer recess, and I am grateful to Senators for facilitating this important work. Before setting out the content of the legislation, I welcome Jason Poole and his father, Joe Poole, to the Seanad. I wish to pay tribute to the Poole family, and particularly Jason, whose tireless campaigning for this Bill has turned it into reality. Senators will be familiar with the tragic story of Jennifer Poole, Jason’s sister and Joe's daughter, who was brutally murdered by her former partner in 2021. Jennifer was not aware that her former partner had a history of violence against women, including previous criminal convictions in this regard. The Poole family has been steadfast in achieving change to protect women like Jennie from violent predators.”
“I welcome the opportunity to present the Bill to the Seanad. Last October, the Government approved the drafting of the criminal law (sexual offences, domestic violence and international instruments) Bill 2025, in which today’s legislation was originally contained. Publication of the report on pre-legislative scrutiny of that general scheme by the Oireachtas joint committee on justice took place in May of this year. Recently, I expedited the provisions relating to the domestic violence judgments register, as this necessary reform has been an absolute priority for me since taking office. I secured Cabinet approval to publish this as a stand-alone Bill last week. I took the earliest opportunity to bring it before this House.”
“In particular, the regulation reiterates the requirements of necessity and proportionality and sets out the key safeguards in this area, including the limitations on the types of data that can be requested and the ability of enforcing States to object to orders under certain circumstances. The EU-evidence package will be implemented in a manner which respects fundamental rights and freedoms, including individuals' rights to privacy and data protection. I look forward to hearing the views and observations of Deputies and answering their questions on this important Bill.”
“It is an opportunity to enhance Ireland’s position as a European hub for digital regulation and a trusted partner in international justice. For law enforcement, it means faster, clearer and legally secure access to the evidence needed to tackle serious crime and for citizens, it means confidence that their data and rights are protected, as we enhance our capacity to fight crime in the digital age. The regulation provides that access to personal data through the mechanism of European production orders will be subject to existing data protection rules and principles.”
“Section 66 provides that the director may require staff, or persons on contract or appointed as advisors, to assist adjudication officers. Section 67 provides that summary proceedings for an offence may be brought and prosecuted by the director. Section 68 provides that summary proceedings for an offence under the Bill may be instituted at any time within two years. Section 69 provides for liability by corporate entities. Section 70 provides that, where a person is convicted of an offence under the Bill, the court shall order the person to pay the director any costs and expenses incurred. The provisions of the Bill have been drafted with a view to successful implementation of the EU evidence package. However, this is not only about compliance. It is also about leadership.”
“Section 59 provides that a payment made by a service provider in respect of a financial penalty shall be paid to the Exchequer. Section 60 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible for appointment or disqualified from holding office as an adjudication officer. Section 61 provides that a person cannot simultaneously hold office as an adjudication officer and be an elected person. Section 62 provides for the nomination by the director of persons for appointment as adjudication officers. Section 63 provides for the appointment by the Minister of adjudication officers. Section 64 provides that an adjudication officer is independent. Section 65 provides that the Minister shall make regulations.”
“Section 52 sets out the circumstances in which a decision as to contravention and financial penalty take effect. Section 53 provides that a service provider may appeal against a decision. Section 54 provides that, where there is no appeal, the director shall make an application in a summary manner to the Circuit Court for confirmation. Section 55 sets out procedural and other matters concerning the conduct of an oral hearing by an adjudication officer. Section 56 provides that an adjudication officer may, before making a decision as to contravention or the imposition of a financial penalty, refer a question to the High Court. Section 57 provides that an adjudication officer may award the costs of proceedings against the service provider or director for improper conduct. Section 58 provides that the Minister may make regulations.”
“Section 48 sets out the actions an adjudication officer shall take for the purposes of assisting him or her in the making of a decision as to whether a service provider has committed a relevant contravention. Section 49 provides that an adjudication officer shall make a decision on the balance of probabilities as to whether a service provider has committed, or is committing, a relevant contravention. Section 50 sets out that the maximum financial penalty that can be imposed on a service provider can be no greater than 2% of the total world annual turnover of the service provider in the preceding financial year. Section 51 provides that an adjudication officer must send the director and the service provider concerned a written notice of a decision.”
“Section 43 provides that an authorised officer shall submit a copy of the report to the director and the service provider concerned. Section 44 sets out the actions that may be taken by the director having received and considered an investigation report, including referring the investigation report to the chief adjudication officer for the purposes of conducting an adjudication. Section 45 provides for the definition of terms in Chapter 5 of the Bill. Section 46 provides that, for the purposes of undertaking an adjudication, the chief adjudication officer shall assign an adjudication officer. Section 47 provides that service providers shall not be liable to be penalised twice for the same contravention.”
“Section 38 provides that the director may request that a service provider provide a compliance report to enable the director to confirm that the service provider is complying with a relevant obligation. Section 39 provides that, where the director is of the opinion that a service provider has contravened a relevant obligation, the director may either enter into an agreement with the service provider in respect of the alleged contravention or cause a directed investigation to be started. Section 40 provides that the director may enter into a written agreement with a service provider setting out the steps to comply with a relevant obligation. Section 41 provides for definitions of terms used in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Bill. Section 42 provides that the director may direct an authorised officer to undertake a directed investigation.”
“Section 32 is a standard provision intended to protect legal privilege. Section 33 creates an offence if certain persons, including staff of the director, an authorised officer or an adjudication officer, make an unauthorised disclosure of information acquired while performing functions under this Bill. Section 34 creates an offence where a person knowingly gives false information or evidence to the director or an adjudication officer. Section 35 provides for the appointment of authorised officers by the director for the purposes of the Bill. Section 36 provides for the powers of those authorised officers. Section 37 provides that a judge of the District Court may issue a search warrant authorising an authorised officer to enter a place.”
“Part 5, comprising sections 31 to 70, inclusive, provides the necessary enforcement mechanisms for non-compliant service providers. Section 31 provides for the definition of terms used in Part 5 of the Bill, including key phrases necessary to the mechanics of the Bill. It defines "e-evidence regulation obligation” as an obligation under Article 10, 11 or 13(4) of the e-evidence regulation. It also defines “relevant obligation” as an obligation on a service provider to, where applicable, designate a designated establishment or appoint a legal representative in accordance with section 26; provide a designated establishment or legal representative with the necessary powers and resources in accordance with section 27; comply with a notice in accordance with section 27; or notify the director in accordance with section 28.”
“Section 27 provides that service providers must designate a designated establishment or a legal representative for the receipt of, compliance with and enforcement of decisions or orders. Section 28 acts as a companion provision to this, providing that service providers must ensure that designated establishments or legal representatives have the necessary powers and resources to comply with decisions and orders. Section 29 provides that service providers must notify the director of the addresses and contact details of their designated establishments and legal representatives. Section 30 provides that service providers and their designated establishments or legal representatives shall be jointly and severally liable.”
“Part 3, comprising sections 23 and 24, provides for the designation of the director as the enforcement authority and central authority, respectively, for the purposes the e-evidence regulation. Part 4, comprising sections 25 to 30, inclusive, provides for the designation of the director as the central authority for the e-evidence directive. It also sets out the various obligations of service providers and actions that may be taken by the director in relation to their implementation. Section 25 is a standard provision providing for definition of terms used in Part 4 of the Bill. Section 26 designates the director as the central authority in the State for the e-evidence directive.”
“Section 16 provides that the director will be indemnified against legal costs and damages relating to the carrying out of his or her functions. Section 17 outlines the various functions of the director and provides that the director will be independent in the performance of those functions. Section 18 is a standard provision providing for the delegation of functions of the director to a member of staff. Section 19 provides that the director may enter into an information-sharing agreement with certain national authorities. Section 20 provides that the director shall submit an annual report to the Minister, while section 21 sets out the statistical information that the director must collect and submit to the Minister. Section 22 provides that the director may issue guidance notes to service providers.”