2026-05-14

3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will review the operation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, which relates to information connected to investigations and criminal proceedings, to ensure that the rights of victims under this section are applied in a consistent manner and that the provisions it contains meet the needs of victims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35913/26]

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act includes provisions for information to be shared with victims of crime. It is ten years since the legislation was enacted. Does the Minister have plans to review the operation of this section to ensure that the provisions it contains are being applied on a consistent basis?

I thank Deputy Carthy for raising this matter. This provision was very novel when the legislation was enacted nearly ten years ago in terms of that fact that it set out statutorily the information that victims of crime are entitled to. Deputy Carthy's question refers to section 8. In effect, the 2017 Act transposed Article 6 of the EU victims directive into domestic law. It established minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims. Section 8 relates to a victim's right to receive information about their case. I am pleased to tell Deputy Carthy that political agreement has been reached between the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament on an amending victims' rights directive. The text in this regard is being finalised for formal adoption. This is expected to happen shortly. Ireland has actively engaged in the negotiations. In many respects, the enhanced provisions reflect practices that are already in place nationally under existing legislation. The aim behind the revised directive is to address existing gaps in protection and support by introducing higher and more consistent standards for victims of crime throughout the EU, including in relation to access to information and support services, reporting mechanisms, data protection, individual assessment of victims' needs, enhanced support during court proceedings, access to legal aid and compensation. The direct answer to the question is that there will be a review of the rights to which victims are entitled. As Deputy Carthy knows, however, the 2017 victims Act was a transposition of an EU directive. That directive is being amended. Once the directive is agreed by us and our European partners, I will introduce proposals not too long afterwards, hopefully. As a matter of standard practice, officials in the Department review victims' rights legislation. It is anticipated that this process will include consideration of whether additional guidelines or protocols are required.

To be clear, there is no requirement whatsoever to wait for an EU legislative process to conclude before we change measures in domestic law, particularly in terms of enhancing support for the victims of crime. The justice committee met in recent days to discuss the victims of crime civil protection orders Bill that I am trying to progress through the House. We heard moving testimony from Sonya Stokes, who the Minister is aware of. Sonya was the victim of horrendous crimes committed by a man who had previously committed several other horrendous crimes. Following his release, Sonya highlighted how traumatised she was and how fearful she was that some form of retribution would be sought. She found out on 30 April that her attacker had deceased in a nursing home on 5 December 2025. She was not informed of the fact. This is one anomaly that we could look at changing. It would only take a technical amendment to the legislation. Would the Minister be open to that?

I thank Deputy Carthy for referring to the committee's hearing. I was aware of that the civil protection orders Bill was being considered. I am also aware of the case of Sonya Stokes. This is an area I will look at. Providing information to victims about a person convicted of an attack upon them is something that is understandably useful to victims of crime. There is also the issue of exclusion orders. One thing people find very traumatic is the prospect that they could bump into their attacker after he is released from prison. It is certainly the position that in the case of people who have life sentences imposed upon them, the Parole Board, because of legislation that has been introduced, can restrict their movements or develop exclusion zones in order that they are prevented from going into certain areas and have to stay away from their victims. This is something I will consider. I must also take into account the need to allow people coming out of prison who have served their sentences to get on with their lives. There is a mechanism in that regard.

I might not have been clear. I specifically asked about victims being informed that their attackers have deceased subsequent to release. In relation to section 8, the difficulty is that many of the testimonies we hear are inconsistent. Many victims have told me that they are incredibly happy with their engagement with the Garda or the Prison Service. Others are unhappy because they do not believe section 8 has been applied to the standard they would have expected in terms of their being informed of developments. I was told in one case by somebody who lost their partner, who was unlawfully killed, that the person responsible was to be released. They got a simple one-line email from the Prison Service informing them of the fact. We can imagine how disruptive it is if the person who killed the father of your children is going to be released and all you get is a cold email. The onus should not be on victims to pursue these things, and we all agree on that. The review of section 8 is crucial.

I am looking through section 8. There is a lot of information that must be provided to the victim in terms of an appeal, a parole application and the release of the individual. This is information that should be provided. Deputy Carthy's specific question is whether a victim should be told when their abuser or attacker who has been convicted dies. I need to consider that. Obviously, we could have a situation where somebody committed an offence in their early 20s and gets out in their early to mid 30s. If we were to impose this obligation, it could mean that 40 years later there would be an obligation on the State to inform a victim that the person who attacked them some 50 or 60 years previously has died. I need to make sure that could operate effectively. I would have thought that if the person convicted dies in prison that should be provided. However, I am worried about putting it into law.