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 2 of 84.
“I thank colleagues for their contribution. I believe the legislation I presented is the correct way to go. I know colleagues are well-intentioned in what they are seeking to do but let us recall what was the motivation for this legislation. The motivation was the case of the murder of Jennifer Poole. Had the previous convictions of the person who murdered her been publicly available that would have had an impact upon her. This mechanism, the statutory scheme I am putting in place, would have covered his convictions. His convictions, which were serious convictions, would be covered by this. I do not believe it is appropriate to go down the route of including a whole other variety of convictions from the District Court.”
“I am not going to accept that amendment because I want to start off with convictions on indictment in order that we can bed down the legislation and see how it operates. Deputy Gannon's amendment No. 12 seeks to include references to section 4 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 and also section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act. For the reasons already outlined, I do not propose to accept the amendment because I want to limit it to what is there at present, namely convictions on indictment, because that is the safest way to start with this legislation. As already stated, however, I am open to looking at this down the road. The great thing about legislation is that once it is put place, we can come back and improve it in the future.”
“We need to be aware that there will be legal challenges to this because just as there are people who are very strong in supporting this Bill and who want to see it on the Statute Book, there are others who will be vehemently opposed to it, particularly those who are convicted of the offences outlined in the legislation. Deputy Carthy has a number of amendments in this group by means of which he is seeking to include a section 2 offence, which is a more minor assault offence. I refer to amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive. In amendment No. 10, the Deputy is seeking to include reference to section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act in the context of an offence committed by somebody who contravenes a protection, safety or barring order.”
“Sometimes, the sentencing judgment in a sentencing hearing will be printed up by the Central Criminal Court or the Circuit Criminal Court and then made available. As this is novel legislation, its parameters have been very carefully drawn. It is important for me to be cautious in how I introduce this. Let us see how it develops. It may be the case that I will be back here in a year saying that Deputy Gannon's proposals were a good idea and that the provisions should be extended. I would not rule out expanding the remit of the legislation in the future. However, I deliberately adopted a measured approach in designing its scope in order to ensure that it can be implemented and can withstand any potential legal challenge.”
“With the greatest of respect to Deputy Gannon, I am not going to accept these amendments. The inclusion of summary offences would be problematic. It would lead the District Court, a court of summary jurisdiction, to start delivering judgments in respect of summary convictions that have been put in place. I agree with Deputy Gannon that any form of violence against women or other offence, even if of a minor nature, is a warning signal and something people need to be very concerned about. However, I also have to recognise what I am doing in this legislation and what Jennie's law is about. It represents a new departure insofar as it gives a statutory power to the criminal courts in relation to delivering a judgment to be put on the register. That is not a practice in the courts at present.”
“It obviously applies in cases of murder, manslaughter, rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault. All of these charges can only arise on indictment. Deputy Gannon's amendment has relevance to the proposed section 40A(11)(g) because some of the offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act can be tried summarily. Such offences include those under sections 3, 3A, 5, 10, 13 and 15 of that Act. Deputy Gannon wants to broaden the ambit of this legislation so that it does not just include convictions on indictment but also includes summary convictions. So that people are aware, summary convictions are convictions of a minor nature that take place in the Circuit Court.”
“I would not like Jennifer's family to think that what is happening here is in any way unorthodox. It is part of the legislative process. It is important that colleagues put forward proposals to test me and to see whether the legislation can be improved. We are looking at a group of amendments, Nos. 1 and 9 to 12, inclusive. Deputy Gannon's amendment, No. 1, asks me to include within the legislation a provision applying the legislation not only to convictions on indictment, that is, convictions in cases heard by the Central Criminal Court or the Circuit Criminal Court, but also to summary convictions. On page 5 of the Bill, the Oireachtas has set out a schedule of offences that should trigger the operation of Jennie's law.”
“I too welcome the family of Jennifer Poole. The Ceann Comhairle has identified them individually. I specifically highlight Jason Poole, who has been steadfast in his support for this legislation. That has been hugely important to me in trying to advance this legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I also acknowledge the role played by all colleagues in this House. We are all aware of the background to Jennie's law and its origins in the brutal and senseless murder of a young woman. That was outlined during yesterday's debate. I really welcome the fact that Deputies from across the political spectrum support and have welcomed this legislation. I recognise that the role of Committee Stage is to allow colleagues to propose amendments they think would improve the legislation.”
“It would be highly unorthodox to means-test the person not receiving the payment. As we have also indicated here, the scheme is going to end next year, so we would expend a lot of bureaucratic and administrative time in setting up a means-testing mechanism that is not necessary and would not be of use next year. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment. Deputy Tóibín spoke about an amendment. I do not know if he has an amendment before the House but if he does, and it is as he indicated, I cannot accept it either. I thank everyone very much.”
“All those factors together indicate to me that there will be mechanisms for people either to stay in that accommodation with their own private arrangement or to secure accommodation elsewhere. The question that has been put out there is where they are going to get accommodation. It is instructive to note that a lot of people are still coming into Ireland each month under the temporary protection directive. They apply for temporary protection but many of them do not look for accommodation because they have a network here that enables them to receive accommodation. I will turn to Deputy Carthy’s amendment, which I cannot accept. His amendment, in short, is about the need to introduce means testing. This is a payment, as I said, made to the owner of the property. It is not a payment made to the Ukrainian people.”
“I do think, however, that the length of the war has had an impact. It must have an impact in terms of Government policy. I thank Deputy Gannon for recognising the effectiveness of the Government. The ARP introduced has been a very effective measure. The last time we debated this topic, there were concerns here regarding moving it from €800 to €600 and that this change was going to significantly undermine it. I do not believe it has. I think it has continued effectively. What we are doing now is reducing it back to the originally intended €400, with notice that come next year, it will be removed completely. It is important to note that many of the people availing of the ARP are diligent people who are able to work and who are working. They also have very good relationships with the persons providing the accommodation.”
“If we look at the accommodation recognition payment that we are debating here, since that was introduced back in June 2022 and up to June 2026, a period of four years, the cost of this has been €496 million, which is €0.5 billion. The point I am making is that the response of the Irish people has been very generous. I think there is agreement on this point. The second thing I suspect there will be agreement on in this House is that I certainly did not expect in February 2022 - maybe other people here did have the foresight to realise this - that the war would be ongoing four and a half years later. It is very significant in terms of the fact that temporary protection was introduced later in 2022 and it is still ongoing. There is a debate in Europe now as to what will happen in respect of temporary protection.”
“There was no requirement on Ireland to provide accommodation for people who came to Ireland claiming temporary protection. We decided, however, that we would go beyond what was set out in the temporary protection directive and that we would, in fact, pay for and provide accommodation for people arriving from Ukraine after 2022. I think that was a very generous step to be taken by the Government on behalf of the Irish people. Everybody in this House agreed in respect of that decision. I also think, however, that we need to be aware that the cost of doing this is very significant. If we look back to 2024, for instance, the cost to the State of temporary protection accommodation was in the region of €1.16 billion. That was just in one year, in 2024.”
“I thank colleagues for their contributions. What is apparent from them is that there is a divergence of opinion not just between the Government and the Opposition but throughout the House when it comes to how we respond to this issue. In a way, I think this reflects the complexity of the issue. It is sometimes healthy that there are diverging views around this House and issues are not just presented in a binary way. There are, however, two points on which I think there is general agreement in this House. The first is that the Irish people have been very generous in their response to the plight faced by Ukrainian people since the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022. One of the obligations under the temporary protection directive is that we provide access to the means of accommodation.”
“To that end, my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I had signalled plans to phase out the scheme when the scheme's extension until 2027 was considered by the Houses in March. This remains our position.”
“Other measures were also taken earlier this year to limit eligibility for the scheme to preclude properties registered with the Residential Tenancies Board with a view to safeguarding rental accommodation for tenants. The draft order before the House would have the effect of revoking the previous order amending the monthly contribution rate and restoring the rate to the original value of €400 specified in the 2022 Act when it commenced. I note the amendment Deputy Carthy has tabled. That will be addressed later. I recognise the concerns raised by Members of this House in previous debates about the equity of the scheme, which is not available to other cohorts.”
“The scheme's payment rate is not, nor has it ever been, linked to the actual cost incurred by the person providing the accommodation. It is a recognition of the valued contribution of those who host. The payment is not intended to substitute rent, nor is it available where a rental agreement is in place. It is also not aligned with market rental rates. The rate has previously been amended twice. It was increased from €400 to €800 on 1 December 2022 to coincide with the introduction of the offer a home scheme. This measure was invaluable in generating emergency accommodation from a stock of holiday homes and largely unused vacant properties. The rate was subsequently reduced to €600 from 1 June last year to address concerns about the scheme's potential impact on the rental market.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation. It has introduced a stream of accommodation that would not otherwise have been available, and it has allowed my Department to move away from a reliance on State-contracted accommodation in the tourism sector. Since July 2022, the scheme has supported more than 29,000 hosts providing accommodation to approximately 66,500 people granted temporary protection. There are currently over 41,000 people with temporary protection accommodated with the support of the scheme. I thank the hosts who have opened their homes, the Irish Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration, their partners and the Irish public, who have shown unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine.”
“The ARP scheme is provided for under Part 2 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022. Section 9 of that Act enables me to make an order amending the amount payable under the scheme, with the consent of the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for public expenditure and reform. I have consulted both Ministers, who have expressed support for the proposed reduction in the rate. The Act of 2022 also provides that the draft order laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas cannot be made law until a resolution approving the order has been passed by each House. The ARP scheme was introduced as an emergency measure at a time of exceptional need, when the demand for accommodation for those seeking refuge from Ukraine outstripped the availability of accommodation.”
“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. The scheme currently involves a tax-free monthly payment of €600 to hosts per eligible property used to accommodate people granted temporary protection from Ukraine. The motion before the House arises on foot of a Government decision of 26 May last in respect of the phased reduction of the ARP from €600 to €400 from 1 September next, with a view to ending the scheme entirely at the end of March 2027. As the payment is made monthly in arrears, the first payment at the reduced rate will be made in October.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft: Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 (Section 9(2)) (Amount of Financial Contribution) Order 2025 (Revocation) Order 2026, a copy of which was laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 2nd July, 2026. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputies for meeting to discuss this motion concerning the order I propose to make, in conjunction with the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, to reduce the monthly financial contribution payable under the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, scheme to €400 from September 2026.”
“It goes back to the point I made at the beginning. The Constitution states that justice is to be administered in public. If we are in the court today and we hear about it, we are entitled to talk about it and so people are entitled to be aware.”
“That is why it is necessary to recognise that some relationships do not end up in that specific way which I discussed a few moments ago but involve a male partner with a history of violence. I believe this House should certainly try to put in place a regime and a statutory mechanism whereby somebody entering into a relationship should be able to find out if that person was convicted of a serious offence in the past. I know people have mentioned here that they would like to see further offences included, such as summary convictions in the District Court. I will not go down that route at this stage. Maybe a future Minister or future Oireachtas may want to do it. Certainly, the State should facilitate the public being aware of persons who are convicted of serious offences and of causing serious harm to a former partner.”
“As has been stated by many Deputies here, it will not necessarily be the case and it cannot be assumed that just because someone's new partner is not on this new register once it comes out that therefore they are safe. Of course they are not. Obviously, people have to engage in their own assessments of a person when entering into a relationship. Deputy Devine started off the contributions by referring to the fact that everyone hopes to meet love. It is important to recognise that, fortunately, the vast majority of engagements that people have are not violent relationships. They might not all work out, but they are not relationships which are violent. However, regrettably in this House we have to deal with those issues which cause problems and which damage individuals.”
“We had a very good discussion and debate on it in Seanad Éireann. In my view, when starting with something like this, we are better off starting cautiously rather than trying to get everything into the statutory scheme. Once we have this new statutory scheme up and running, I hope to see it develop over time. I have picked domestic sexual and gender-based violence as the type of offences which need to be covered by this new statutory scheme because of the experience of Jennifer Poole and the appalling history of what happened to her, which my colleague Deputy McAuliffe recounted earlier. People would like to be aware if somebody has been convicted of a serious offence against a previous partner or former partner.”
“When we get down into the other offences, these are the potential offences that may not be reported upon, such as assault causing harm, assault causing serious harm, non-fatal strangulation, threats to kill, harassment, endangerment, false imprisonment and indeed coercive control under the Domestic Violence Act. The benefit of this legislation is that the courts will now know, after a person has been convicted on indictment of any of those offences and if it involves an intimate partner or former intimate partner, that there is a statutory mechanism available for the court to put in print details of that conviction. Since this is something that is novel, I am probably adopting a conservative approach in the initial drafting of it. We will have a discussion tomorrow night about the amendments that will come forward.”
“As everyone has noted, inspired by Jason Poole in memory of his sister, Jennifer, there had to be some process of making information available arising from verdicts that are given and judgments delivered in respect of people convicted of serious offences against an intimate partner or former partner. That is the purpose of this legislation. At the outset it limits it to indictable convictions and people who have been convicted of serious offences in the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court. A schedule of the offences is set out, including obviously murder, manslaughter and rape.”
“Unquestionably, individuals are being convicted of serious offences in the Circuit Criminal Court and people are not hearing about them because there is no journalist in court to report them. That is no criticism of journalists; it is just a fact of the matter. Therefore, someone looking for a record of whether somebody was convicted of, for example, assault causing serious harm under section 4 in a Circuit Court down the country will not be able to find that out. My view is that is a failing and a fault in the system. We should be able to find out information in respect of criminal convictions. That is a battle for another day.”
“The only time we get a written judgment in respect of a criminal trial is if it goes on appeal to the Court of Appeal and then we get the details of what happened in the court below, the conviction, the nature of the defence and the detail about the individual concerned. One of the consequences of the fact that verdicts are delivered by juries promptly and there is no written record of them outside of that is that sometimes people do not get to hear about them. We are dependent upon journalists being in court in order to find out about criminal convictions and the decisions of verdicts. To a large extent, journalists do that very professionally. Virtually all the cases that happen in the Central Criminal Court are reported upon even though today we have about ten Central Criminal Courts in operation at any one time.”
“Rape is an exception because of protecting the anonymity of the complainant. This legislation is necessary because all of those are cases that are heard on indictment and will be determined by a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court. All around Ireland today, there are cases in the Circuit Criminal Court and the Central Criminal Court where the outcome of the jury's deliberations gives rise to a sentence being imposed by the court. However, unlike in civil proceedings, there is not a written judgment of 20 or 30 pages recording the facts of the case. The courts website shows judgments from the High Court or the Circuit Court in the civil sphere and reserved reported judgments of the judges of the High Court predominantly.”
“It is a small response and nobody is suggesting that it is the full response but it is an important response to it. It is surprising that this legislation has to be introduced at all. The reason I say that is because, as Deputies know, under the Constitution justice is required to be administered in public. That in particular applies in respect of criminal offences. There are family law cases, which Deputy Gogarty referred to, that are heard in camera . There are some criminal prosecutions where, for the purposes of protecting the identity of the complainant, individuals' identities are not revealed. To a large extent, cases of prosecutions for assault causing harm under section 3, assault causing serious harm under section 4, coercive control and manslaughter are all cases that are heard in public.”
“It is important to note that the only other time that has happened in my experience is in respect of the Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill 2026, which will be finalised tomorrow night and again was inspired by an appalling piece of violence perpetrated against a woman, Valerie French. It indicates that there is broad recognition in this House that we need a co-ordinated response to the growing problem of domestic sexual and gender-based violence. As Deputy Byrne just indicated, it is a problem that predominantly affects women. In Northern Ireland and in the UK, this issue is referred to as violence against women and girls. In Ireland we adopt a broader approach in respect of it, but predominantly we are talking about violence against women and girls. This legislation is an important part of our legislative response to that crisis.”
“I thank all Deputies for their contributions. I acknowledge the fact that, unusually, every person who has spoken in this debate is in support of the legislation. That is a very positive sign in respect of what we, as a House, are seeking to do in terms of changing the law. On many occasions, understandably and correctly, the legislative process is adversarial and people disagree with legislative proposals being put forward by one side or the other. However, in this instance it is instructive that there is widespread agreement across the House in respect of the legislation being introduced.”
“I urge Deputies to work with me to get this important Bill through this House before the recess. I conclude by welcoming Jason Poole to this Chamber and commending him for his tireless commitment to this cause.”
“Those with serious criminal convictions for such offences should not be able to escape the consequences of their behaviour. People 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. 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 publicised. Let me end by acknowledging again the dedication of Jason Poole and his family, who have campaigned tirelessly for real and lasting change in memory of their cherished Jennie. Jennie's law will help to keep women safe, which is a fitting tribute to her memory.”
“It remains to be seen how it will function in practice. I also expect that the legislation will be challenged in the courts. I believe that the legislation has been appropriately calibrated and is a measured and proportionate response to serious offending. My view is that it is prudent to introduce the register in a circumspect manner. Once operationalised, the impact of the legislation can be assessed with due consideration for any further measures. I close by reiterating my commitment and that of this Government to tackling the scourge of gender-based violence. The register will form part of the Government's zero tolerance approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. We must make it crystal clear that there is no place for such behaviour in our society.”
“What this legislation will provide is a vital resource in relation to safety. In setting out details of a history of serious offending, it will benefit those who may be in a relationship or considering entering a relationship with such a person. Offending of this nature clearly gives warning of an increased risk of domestic, sexual or gender-based violence, knowledge which may be crucial in enabling people to make informed decisions about their personal relationships. The register is a tool which addresses a lacuna in our justice system in order to try to keep people safer. The parameters of the legislation have been carefully drawn, some might say narrowly drawn. I expect there may be calls to expand the scope of the register or to broaden its remit. However, I stress that this legislation is novel.”
“Importantly, the views of the victim are also to be taken into account where they are available. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill provide for consequential amendments to the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 respectively. In essence, these amendments ensure that nothing in those pieces of legislation precludes the publication of a judgment in the domestic violence judgments register. Section 5 of the Bill is a standard provision which provides for the Short Title and commencement of the Bill. This legislation is straightforward. It establishes a framework for a register of judgments, which will contain judgments in relation to serious crimes committed by an abuser against a current or former partner.”
“Such consent is a prerequisite to publication. To be clear, the victim will not be named in these judgments. Nevertheless, where the perpetrator is named, the victim may be identifiable. As such, publication cannot and should not occur without their consent. Where a victim is deceased, the decision on publication rests with the court. Part 3A also sets out a procedure by which a convicted person can apply for the relevant judgment to be removed from the register. An application can only be made three years after the person has served their sentence and been released from prison. In considering whether removal of the judgment is warranted, the judge must have regard to any further convictions or any efforts at rehabilitation on the part of the perpetrator.”
“As everyone in this Chamber knows, the perpetrators of such offences are predominantly, but not always, men, while the victims are predominantly, but not always, women. I say this to underline that this is the reality of gender-based violence. It is at the discretion of the trial judge whether or not 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 that information. Let me point out that a judgment may only be published where the victim gives their consent.”
“This will be known as the domestic violence judgments register and it will be available on the courts.ie website. 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. The register will capture these heinous crimes where they are committed by a partner, or a former partner, against a victim.”
“There is no means by which someone can ascertain what has happened in cases which are not reported in the media. I believe that serious incidents of domestic or sexual violence, assault or abuse ought to be effectively publicised as part of the trial process and that is what this legislation sets out to do. 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. I now outline the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 of the Bill amends the Domestic Violence Act 2018 by inserting a new Part 3A into that Act. The new Part 3A provides that the Courts Service will establish and maintain a register of judgments.”
“It will stand as a tribute to their beloved sister, daughter and mother and to their own steadfast determination to achieve lasting change in her memory. I commend Jason Poole and all the Poole family for their work in this regard. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the publication of judgments relating to serious domestic violence offences. It is a straightforward aim yet it is something that is not routinely done at present. Currently, media representatives report on cases from our courtrooms in line with the constitutional principle that justice should be done in public. However, attendance is constrained by scheduling and resources. There are not media representatives at every trial. As such, some judgments of juries are reported on while others are not.”
“It is something I really believe will bring about positive change in our ongoing battle against domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. This legislation, as Deputies will be aware, has its origins in an appalling crime. In 2021 Jennifer Poole, an innocent young woman, was brutally murdered by her former partner. Jennifer's murderer had a history of violence against women and in the past had spent time in prison for these crimes. Jennifer did not know this. The Poole family, in particular Jennifer’s brother Jason, have campaigned tirelessly for this legislation. In doing so, their aim is to protect women like Jennie from violent predators. I have previously stated that this legislation will be known as Jennie’s law, and I want to reiterate it again here in this House.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I welcome the opportunity to present the Domestic Violence Judgments Register Bill 2026 to Dáil Eireann. The genesis of this legislation is in October 2025, when the drafting of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences, Domestic Violence and International Instruments) Bill was approved by Government. In May this year, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration published its report on pre-legislative scrutiny of that general scheme. Last month, I secured Cabinet approval to progress the provisions in relation to the domestic violence judgments register as a stand-alone Bill. I was determined to expedite that legislation as this is a key commitment for me.”
“Justice White expressed hope that the report has brought some peace of mind to the victims of Bill Kenneally. I also hope it has done.”
“I was struck in my recent meeting with some of the victims by their gratitude for the work of, and their engagement with, Mr. Justice White and their belief that he had managed very difficult subject matter even-handedly and with great sensitivity. He is, indeed, a very fine person. The report is a reminder to all of us gathered in this Chamber, and those whose role it is to protect the vulnerable in our society, that we must hold ourselves to the highest standards. Mr. Justice White has clearly outlined to us the terrible consequences that result from our failure to do so. While nothing will ever take away what happened to Bill Kenneally's victims, I hope it is some comfort to them that their efforts will have made the world a little safer for the most vulnerable, including our children, who come after them. In concluding his report, Mr.”
“Separate to the findings of the report, and acknowledging that there is nothing that can right the wrongs perpetrated by Bill Kenneally, I have instructed officials in my Department to begin the process to secure compensation for those who have suffered as a result of the failures outlined in the report. The exact details will be worked out with engagement from the victims themselves but, on a personal level, I do not want to see those of you who have been through so much put through any further lengthy legal processes. I would like to see a mediated solution that brings much-needed closure to all parties. As a final thought, I thank again, as has already been done, Mr. Justice White and his predecessor, Judge Hickson, for the tireless and painstaking work of compiling the report.”
“The Attorney General has specifically requested that the Law Reform Commission examine the current state of the pre-1937 common-law offence in Irish law; whether a new criminal offence of "misconduct in public office" or "misconduct in public office by omission" could be provided for by statute, and what the ingredients of that offence would be; and what the advantages and disadvantages of the enactment of any such criminal offence would be. The Attorney General has encouraged the Law Reform Commission to engage with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and An Garda Síochána on this matter and has asked them to revert to him within nine months.”
“Chapter 12 of the report outlines the legal confusion about whether there is a common-law offence of that nature that was carried over into law after the enactment of the Constitution in 1937. The finding of the commission is that there is no such offence of serious dereliction of duty. I have accepted the recommendation of Mr. Justice White and wrote to the Attorney General a number of weeks ago to begin the process of reviewing the matter. The Attorney General has confirmed to me that he has written to the Law Reform Commission under section 4 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1975 and has requested that the Law Reform Commission examine and research this matter further.”