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 8 of 84.
“As amendment No. 33 is the only amendment to this important part of this legislation, I might respond to it. As Senator Harmon has said, the amendment concerns section 53(1)(d), which provides that where there is no immediate family member willing or able to apply for a disregard in respect of a relevant person who is deceased, another relative may make such an application provided there is no objection from an immediate family member. The proposed amendment suggests that we provide that in addition to a relative, such an application may also be made by a "partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person". It is important to look at the very broad definition of "relative" contained within section 51 of the legislation.”
“Equally, to impose a cut-off date, such as the 1993 decriminalisation date, would almost certainly be challenged as arbitrary and unfair. For those reasons, I consider that the inclusion of these offences would not be legally or operationally viable. However, military convictions for the repealed offences of buggery, attempted buggery, gross indecency and importuning are within the scope of the scheme. I am also conscious that there is an amendment due in respect of section 53, which was also an issue raised by Senator Harmon, but I will respond to that when it arises.”
“First, it would be legally questionable but also impracticable, especially at this remove, to attempt to determine whether a particular court martial was brought purely because of the homosexual nature of an act, rather than because it involved a disciplinary infraction, such as abuse of rank. This would equally have been the case if the act had been heterosexual in nature. Second, the relevant misconduct offences under the 1954 Act remain in force and, according to the Department of Defence, continue to be used today. Their inclusion would open the possibility for misconduct convictions right up to the present day and into the future to be relitigated under a scheme intended to address a historical injustice.”
“Senators may be aware that the working group, which prepared a very detailed report in respect of this issue, recommended that the scheme should include certain military misconduct offences, such as disgraceful or scandalous conduct or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline under the Defence Act 1954 and its predecessor, the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923. During the course of the discussion and consultation on the draft heads, significant legal concerns were raised about including any case in which a person was court-martialed for military misconduct. On careful consideration, I concluded that these offences could not appropriately be included, and there are two reasons for this.”
“The first thing to respond to is the question of whether the scheme covers convictions handed down by military courts, and the answer is "Yes." The definition of "relevant conviction" or "caution" covers convictions recorded by a court of criminal or military jurisdiction. A person who was convicted by court martial of buggery, or one of the other listed offences listed in the scheme, may apply for a disregard on the same basis as a person convicted in a civilian court. However, there is another more pertinent question in respect of the military, which is why the scheme does not include the military misconduct offences recommended by the working group.”
“Of course, the people advocating for this would not like to see that happen because what really want to protect and disregard is those men who were involved in consensual sexual activity. For that reason, we have put in place a scheme that requires an application being made. There is a review process in it. Persons can also make applications on behalf of persons who are deceased. Once we get this enacted, and measures are starting already, we want to see this operational as quickly as possible. I am having discussions with others in respect of how we can get that done. Senator Harmon mentioned those in the military. This issue was raised with me in the Dáil and I responded to it.”
“The scheme, as the Members will see, which is set out in Part 15, is complicated scheme but it allows a relatively simple procedure to operate for applications that can be made for a disregard. When this was first being considered by me in the Dáil, I thought that maybe the way to deal with it was do something like they did in the UK in respect of the miscarriage of justice that operated for those who were involved in the post office prosecutions many years ago, and that we would just introduce legislation to say that anyone convicted of the offences, which will be scheduled, should have those offences disregarded. It was then sensibly and importantly pointed out to me by officials that we have to be careful because there may been people who were convicted of such offences where there was non-consensual sexual activity.”
“My advice to anyone who becomes Ministers for justice in the future is to use the miscellaneous provisions Bill to get things done promptly because before they know it, they will not be Minister for justice, and their opportunity will be gone. It is extremely important that we have a disregard scheme to recognise the unfairness that was done to men since the foundation of the State in 1922 because of an inherent aspect of their personality which was their sexuality. It is important that we do this by way of a disregard scheme, which, in a way, is better than a pardon as it disregards them and recognises that they should never have been imposed in the first place.”
“I also want to speak on Part 15 of the Bill. This is an important part of the legislation that we are putting through the House today on Committee Stage. This is the part that deals with the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations. I also welcome Karl Hayden to the Gallery and recognise the work done by Kieran Rose, Brian Sheehan and others over the years in respect of this scheme. Similarly, many Members of the Oireachtas have been pushing this for many years. Again, I decided that I would expedite it through that great mechanism known as a "miscellaneous provisions Bill". It has been very effective in terms of getting legislation enacted that has been proposed and discussed for many years.”
“Licensees who are granted a street furniture licence under the provisions of this Bill are bound by the provisions of section 254 of the 2000 Act. Compliance with the terms and conditions of a street furniture licence, including those in respect of advertising, is mandatory. A breach of those conditions can result in the revocation of the street furniture licence which could have serious repercussions for a licensee. Non-compliance with a street furniture licence can ground an objection to an application for a renewal of that licensee's intoxicating liquor licence. Accordingly, the amendment is not necessary as we already deal with that in our legislation.”
“The amendments put forward by Senators Higgins, Ruane and Stephenson are unnecessary when we look at the current legislative framework. A street furniture licence is issued at the discretion of the local authority under section 254 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It will be issued under the Planning and Development Act 2024 when the relevant provisions of that Act are commenced. Under section 46 of this Bill, a street furniture licence is defined as "a licence granted to a licensee of a licensed premises under section 254 of the Act of 2000 or section 13 of the Act of 2024 in respect of tables and chairs, prescribed under section 254(1)(g) of the Act of 2000 or section 13(2)(h) of the Act of 2024, situated outside the premises".”
“I thank the Senators for their proposed amendment. The amendment concerns Part 14 of the Bill which relates to outdoor seating areas for licensed premises. Colleagues will be aware that since 2020, Ministers for justice have come to the Houses of the Oireachtas every six months, looking for the extension of these measures that were introduced during Covid-19. It is sensible that we keep them on a permanent basis as it does improve the quality of life and enjoyment that people can have to be able to sit outside on the infrequent days that we get good weather. It should be permanently on the Statute Book. If it is enacted, it will mean that we will not have those resolutions coming back to be voted on in the Seanad and the Dáil every six months.”
“I have gone through the process of having the new section 45A vigorously examined by the Office of the Attorney General and by officials in my own Department who were very satisfied that it is constitutionally sound and will stand up to any scrutiny. I do not want to start interfering with it at this stage. In respect of other matters, we will keep it under review. Again, I want to commend Senator Harmon on her role in bringing forward this legislative provision.”
“Are we going to then start saying that if there is a small reduction in rent because of the relationship that had consensually developed between them, in some respects could that retrospectively be identified as having been a criminal offence? It is an issue of concern. It is a novel piece of legislation and I would just say to Senator Harmon that I am not going to accept the amendments because of their breadth. I know they may appear logical in terms of what the Senator is trying to outlaw but given the interaction or interference it will have in certain relationships and what could be regarded as a criminal act, namely, reducing slightly rent by a certain amount because of a relationship, I am not going to accept the amendments.”
“I want to assure Senators that I will keep this area under review to ensure that the legislation is working as it should, including expanding it in due course if deemed necessary. In terms of the amendments put forward by Senator Harmon, where there is a reference on three occasions to "in lieu of payment" the Senator wants to include “in lieu of, or in exchange for a reduction in, payment”. The Office of the Attorney General has asked me to be cautious about this. The reason for that is when a person is asking somebody for sex in lieu of rent it is clear what is happening. The inclusion of "In lieu of a reduction in rent" could lead to circumstances where there may be a relationship ongoing between a landlord and a tenant.”
“It required also getting the assistance of senior counsel with experience of prosecuting sexual offences. Officials in the Department of housing also contributed to the process. The legislative provisions we are including are novel insofar as they represent a potentially significant inroad into the private sphere of interpersonal relations. Great care has been taken to ensure that they are clear, precise and limited in scope. This is necessary in order to ensure that the provisions are workable, constitutionally sound and prosecutable and that they will not create any unintended consequences. I am confident that moving to criminalise this predatory behaviour sends a strong message that such behaviour is not acceptable and that we as a society will not tolerate it.”
“As well as commending Senator Harmon, I should commend the journalists who have identified this and who brought it to the attention of policymakers and legislators such as ourselves. It is exploitative behaviour. We need to stamp it out and we need to ensure it is not recognised as being in any way acceptable behaviour. Criminalisation of this behaviour is also a programme for Government commitment. It is also in line with the zero-tolerance strategy and the line the Government has in respect of our approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. Notwithstanding that it is something we all recognise needs to be made a criminal offence, it is complicated from a legislative perspective. This is why we had extensive engagement with the Office of the Attorney General in respect of the provisions.”
“Officials work extremely hard and diligently but there obviously is prioritisation when it comes to legislation. That is why I wanted to prioritise this and the best way to prioritise it was by including it within the miscellaneous provisions Bill. I thank Senator Harmon for her role in catalysing the introduction of this legislation, and hopefully its enactment. The Senator is correct in identifying, as she did last year, that the reason we need this provision is because of this pretty hideous and reprehensible activity that is ongoing. I know certainly that when it comes to the beginning of the college year in September, we generally hear some further accounts in respect to this.”
“I thank Senator Harmon for the amendments and at the outset I acknowledge her role in ensuring this provision is within this miscellaneous provisions Bill. The reason for that is because last year, Senator Harmon introduced legislation in this House seeking to outlaw sex for rent. At the time I agreed with it and said I would try to bring it forward, which is what I am doing in section 45. The real advantage of a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that you can get provisions enacted and onto the Statute Book very promptly. Had I decided just to agree with Senator Harmon and say we would go down the route of introducing legislation to outlaw sex for rent, I would say we would not have it done by now. We would have to go through a long, detailed process and that is natural because there is a huge amount of work in the Department of justice.”
“Additionally, the wording of what is now subsection (1B) has been altered to ensure it aligns better with Articles 25, 26 and 28 of the Rome Statute. Amendment No. 27 clarifies that the exception contained in subsection (2A) of section 64A shall only apply to domestic criminal investigations of International Criminal Court crimes and not to other proceedings such as those connected to co-operation requests with the ICC. While section 64A grants the Government the power to make orders prescribing certain acts that are the subject of an amendment to the Rome Statute as a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC, this is only for the purpose of co-operation with the court and cannot be used to alter any domestic criminal offence in Irish law. This small clarification is aimed at more clearly reflecting this. Amendment agreed to.”
“These amendments concern the International Criminal Court Act 2006. They are minor and very technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, ensure the definition of the crime of aggression for the purposes of co-operating with the International Criminal Court, ICC, shall not include any additional acts contained in a subsequent amendment to Article 8 of the ICC's Rome Statute in the absence of new primary legislation or a Government order made pursuant to the proposed section 64A of the 2006 Act. Similar limitations are already provided for in this Bill with respect to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and so it is considered that it would be anomalous not to extend such a limitation to the crime of aggression.”
“I thank Senators for their contribution. I value the discussion that we have had here. Once this legislation is enacted, we will learn from it. I have no doubt it will be necessary to come back to tweak it and to change it, or maybe to add to it, but it is important that we set the principle out that when people are convicted of serious offences by our courts there has to be a mechanism available in the context of intimate relationships here that people can get access to that information.”
“This legislation will provide a mechanism for judges to decide whether or not the judgment should be published and information should be available on serious criminal offences perpetrated by persons against intimate partners or former partners. There is a public benefit in that information being available. People are entitled to know what is happening in our courts. It is not possible for people to be fully aware of what is happening in our courts because there is such a breadth of work ongoing on a daily basis in the courts throughout Ireland and, in fairness, journalists cannot be expected to cover every case. I believe this process is an important start in ensuring that people can get more information about of indictable offences in respect of which there is a criminal conviction before our courts.”
“I thank Senators for the manner in which they have dealt with this legislation. I again commend Jason Poole on really being the catalyst and driver of this legislation so that we can get this law, Jennie's law, through the Houses of the Oireachtas. As I stated on the amendments that were discussed, it is a novel piece of legislation. I start from a premise that justice in Ireland is to be administered in public. People should have information available in respect of criminal convictions that happen in our courts. We are dealing here with our most serious courts, where there are indictable offences being heard and people are convicted of them.”
“That is why the Judiciary is mandated to exercise the judicial function in this State so that all those factors are taken into account in the interests of justice. I thank the Senator for her amendment. I do not believe it is necessary. I believe all those factors will be taken into account by judges exercising the discretion that is available to them under this legislation.”
“The Judicial Council Act provides a statutory basis for education and training of the Irish Judiciary. The Judicial Studies Committee exists, which is very important. It includes modules on procedural justice, courtroom dynamics, judicial conduct and ethics as well as unconscious bias. The committee further offers a series of education and training programmes to the entire Judiciary and they are very important. We just look at the broad principle of legislation and see how it operates. When judges enter into office, when they are deciding a case or exercising a discretion such as will be available under this legislation is that they have to take into account all the circumstances of a particular case. We will not be aware of much of the detail. There could be factors that arise that none of us in this House has ever considered.”
“I thank Senator Tully for the amendment. In many respects, the Senator's amendment is similar to the amendment that was put forward earlier by Senator Ruane, on which we had a decent debate. As Senator Tully will be aware, the legislation provides the court with the discretion to order the inclusion of a judgment on the register. When considering whether to make an order or not, the judge will weigh up all the factors of the particular case. This will necessarily include the circumstances of the convicted person and the circumstances of the victim and of any child or children connected to the case. Considerations of safety and welfare will be paramount in the exercise of any such decision by a judge. I am fully aware the courts are very much alive to the sensitivities of such cases.”
“I agree that members of the public should be clearly informed of the scope and limitations of the register as well as the supports available to victims of domestic violence. I wish to make it clear that such information will be prominently displayed to individuals seeking to access the register. As regards Senator Tully's concern, that information will clearly be made available to individuals who are accessing information on the website. I am rejecting the amendment, not because I disagree with the detail of it but because that level of detail is not required in primary legislation.”
“While I will not accept the amendment, I do so on the basis that the provisions proposed are operational in nature. Certainly, that is something that could be put up on the website in terms of where the judgments are. The amendment is probably too granular to be provided for in primary legislation. Legislating at the level of operational detail could inadvertently reduce flexibility and create unnecessary operational constraints in the future. That said, I fully support the objective underlying these amendments. I assure Senators that the development and placement of appropriate warnings, explanatory notices and signposting to relevant support services have already been considered in discussions between officials in my Department and the Courts Service during the preparation of this Bill.”
“Like Senator Tully, I do not want to frighten everyone who is getting into a new relationship that the first thing you have to do is to run a check on the register, and if they are not on it you get a sense of relief. Certainly, if somebody was on a register and you started going out with them, you would need to consider that, but in the context of what is being proposed here, it is important that people are aware that there are limitations to the register. Obviously, I am mindful that those accessing the register may be doing do because they are experiencing domestic violence or because they are seeking information on behalf of someone who is. In such circumstances, it is important that users are provided with clear information about the supports and services available to victims of domestic violence.”
“I thank the Senator for this very useful amendment because it leads to an important discussion. It is clearly the case that, if somebody's name is not on the register, it does not therefore mean that there is no potential issue at all about a person with whom someone is in a relationship. Unfortunately, it is the case that most people who abuse women in Ireland after the enactment of this legislation will not be on the register because a lot it will happen for the first time. Obviously, it may be the case as well that the register does not record every person who has committed violence against a partner in the past. It is worthwhile pointing out that the absence of a person's name does not indicate that such a person does not pose a risk or was not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse.”
“This is introductory legislation. It is novel. I will keep a very close eye on it. I am open to reviewing and revisiting the legislation once it is up and running. It may be the case that I will come back in due course or whoever is the Minister for justice may come back with a proposal to add to the list of offences that trigger this legislation. In the future, that could include summary offences as opposed to just indictable offences. I would like to see how it operates first of all in respect of indictable offences and we can proceed from there in the future.”
“It now includes the offences of harassment, stalking and distributing or publishing an intimate image without consent. I say this simply to illustrate that I consider all recommendations and amendments and, where appropriate, I will take them on board. Nonetheless, I do not believe I should accept these amendments, which would include in the Bill summary offences. That is how they referred to. The legislation is novel and it remains to be seen how it will function in practice. It is also liable to be challenged. I have to keep a balance between rehabilitation - the proportionality between that - and the offences. If I was to include convictions for what are referred to technically within the legal system as minor offences - I am not saying that they are - then it could upset the equilibrium that I have been very careful to establish here.”
“These offences, by their nature, are at the most serious level of offending. The perpetrators of such offences are dangerous people. This measure will contribute to the identification of such abusers, providing knowledge that may make a material difference to someone's life. I welcome Jason Poole to the Gallery. While I was reading that out, I was thinking of the circumstances of Jennifer Poole. The person who murdered her had convictions for previous serious indictable offences. Obviously, a situation like that, which has inspired the introduction of Jennie's law, is the type thing that we want to ensure is covered. It is covered. During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, there were some recommendations made by the committee on justice. I expanded the scope of the Bill on foot of those recommendations.”
“That is how the legal system regards them. I understand the rationale behind seeking to include these offences in the domestic violence register of judgments. These are offences that may be perpetrated by a domestic abuser. Such abuse may escalate to more serious acts of violence or it may not. It is nonetheless to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. However, as I outlined on Second Stage in the House, this legislation represents a new departure. It is novel legislation insofar as it gives a statutory power to the criminal courts in relation to delivering a judgment to be put on a register of judgments. This is not currently the practice in those courts, namely, the Circuit Criminal Court. It is for this reason that I have taken the decision to limit the scope of the legislation to indictable offences.”
“I thank the Senator for these three amendments. As she said, they seek to broaden the scope of the legislation to include a number of other offences that would trigger potential disclosure on the register of judgments. The other offences that she said should be included are assault where it is committed against an intimate partner, a breach of a protective order granted under the Domestic Violence Act and the recording, distributing or publishing of an intimate image without consent contrary to section 3 of the harmful communications Act. As she indicated, all of these are summary offences. Summary offences are offences that are tried in the District Court without a jury. They are supposed to be dealt with summarily and quickly. To be frank, they are less serious offences than indictable offences.”
“Regarding somebody with the same name as the convicted person and nobody thinks it is them other than they may believe it themselves, comes in and then we start getting annotations on the judgment. That would be a very complicated way of dealing with, what is at present, not an enormous problem in respect of reported judgments.”
“Issues can arise in respect of people with similar names. There is no remedy in this regard at present other than that most people are able to distinguish themselves. If there is any doubt, they are able to notify people that they are not the person concerned and that they have not been imprisoned or had any issue like that. It is an issue that can exist where people share the same name from the same area. I do not know if there any Mark Dalys down in Kenmare. If there are, they may be confused with the Cathaoirleach. However, it is an issue. I will keep the legislation under the review, but the provision the Senator is proposing is going to make it very difficult.”
“All of this facilitates a process of identification in which the various individual pieces of data will allow identification of a specific person and, equally, preclude the erroneous identification of others. I am confident that any possibility of confusion will be mitigated in this way. Overall, I am satisfied that the combination of the offender's name, age and, where appropriate, residential address, together with the other information necessarily contained in a written judgment, will provide sufficient information to identify an offender accurately. As such, I will not be accepting the amendment. This is an issue that exists at present. One can have a written decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of a serious conviction. A person's name and his or her address will be contained within it.”
“That is why it is important that there be specificity within any judgment identifying a person. The approach taken in the legislation is to specify a minimum amount of information required in every judgment, to include the perpetrator's name, age, residential address if appropriate, particulars of the offence and particulars of the penalty. Obviously, there would be more information in a judgment that would assist in determining who the specific person is. I stress that this is similar information to that routinely published in media reporting on offences without any objection. However, in delivering judgments, I anticipate that the court will go further in providing further context and background on the offence and the offender.”
“It is unquestionably the case that there are other people of the same name in the vicinity who might be concerned about the fact that they could be considered to be him. There are many ways by which we know it is not that person. The issue Senator Harmon is seeking to resolve or address in her amendments is one that exists across the board at present. It is possible that people who have the same name as another person referred to in newspapers or written judgments of the courts can be, to use the wording here, "liable incorrectly to identify him or her as a convicted person". That can already happen. The remedy for a person in that situation is sometimes that he or she can write to a newspaper and say he or she is not the person but there is not really a remedy in terms of written judgments of the courts.”
“There is just a record of the decision of the jury, which is announced publicly. At present, however, there are reserved judgments which are reported judgments of the courts in respect of appeals to the Court of Appeal from criminal convictions. Where somebody is convicted of a serious offence and appeals it to the Court of Appeal, frequently and generally there is a written judgment where the names of the people are identified. Similarly, even where there is not a written reserved judgment of a judge, there are very many cases where serious criminal trials are reported on in the newspapers and the outcomes of the cases are reported by the newspapers. There are situations where, say, Jim O'Callaghan of Rathmines will have been convicted of a very serious offence and that is reported in the newspaper.”
“I thank Senator Harmon for the amendment. Again, it is worthwhile to examine the situation currently because it is unquestionably the case that, at present, a person can be incorrectly identified as the person referred to in a judgment. There are very many reserved written judgments on the website www.courts.ie at present. We have judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. There is the odd one from the Circuit Court. The reason this legislation is necessary is that where there is trial by jury in the criminal context, it is seldom the case that there is a written judgment. The reason is that at the end of the process, a person is either found guilty or not guilty. For example, in the recent trial of Jeffrey Donaldson, there was no written judgment.”
“These are on the one hand protecting women and people who have been abused and may be abused in the future by convicted people, and rehabilitation of offenders on the other.”
“I know Senator Tully is not suggesting this, but people should be aware that this statutory provision I am introducing does not simply mean you stay on the register of judgments for three years and then it elapses. There is no period after which it will stop unless an application is brought. The period we are talking about here is how long after conviction or release can an application be brought. I have said you have to wait for three years. Senator Tully says five years. On balance I will stick to three years. I have to be careful when introducing new legislation like this, which people will seek to challenge as is their entitlement, and I want to be able to show that it is proportionate and I have been proportionate in balancing the primary interests.”
“It is important to recognise that inclusion on the register may have significant implications for an offender's ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, including in areas such as employment. I have to take those factors into account as well. For that reason, the minimum period for inclusion on the register must be proportionate and must strike an appropriate balance between the objectives of accountability, public protection from domestic violence and rehabilitation. I want to be clear that this provision does not permit the automatic or immediate removal of a judgment from the register once the three-year period has expired. It merely allows the offender to apply to the court for removal, with the final decision resting entirely with the court.”
“Once you are on the register, you will not get off that register of judgments unless you apply, but many people will not apply. The Bill does not impose any limit on the length of time a judgment may remain on the register. Once entered, a judgment will continue to be recorded unless and until the offender makes an application for its removal and the court is satisfied that removal is appropriate. In reaching that decision the court must have regard to a range of factors, including the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation and, importantly, the views of the victim. The Bill provides for a minimum period that must elapse before an offender may apply for removal and that period has been set by me at three years.”
“Under the current provisions, once a judgment is entered on the register it may only be removed following an application by the offender, and only after three years have elapsed from the date of conviction where no term of imprisonment was imposed, or from the date of release where the conviction resulted in imprisonment. The amendments propose extending that minimum period from three years to five years. In addition, amendment No. 9 seeks to introduce a provision enabling the court to order that the judgment shall remain on the register for a longer period. I am not going to accept the amendments although I have given careful consideration to them. I emphasise, first and foremost, that there is no automatic expiry date for the inclusion of a judgment on the register.”
“I thank Senator Tully for her amendment. Obviously this is new legislation. It is a departure from what was there previously. When you are introducing new and novel legislation you have to proceed, as I am sure the Senator can appreciate, with caution at the outset. The advantage of establishing this as a statutory provision, and it being a principle in our legal system that there is such a statute available, is that we can review it and look at it and see how it is developing after it is enacted and we see its operation. What is proposed by Senator Tully is that the statutory period of three years for an application to have the name removed from the register be extended to five years.”
“It is unquestionably the case that, in determining this matter, the court will take into account the factors the Senator's amendment seeks to expressly include, including the interests of a child living in the House where the convicted person resides. Considerations of safety and welfare will be paramount in any decision as to whether it is in the interests of justice not to publish a residential address. As a result, I will not be accepting the amendment. Senator Ruane's concerns are already recognised within the legislation by the fact that residential addresses are dealt with by a separate subsection, section 40A(6), and by the fact that the interests of justice are broad enough to cover the issues the Senator is concerned about.”