2026-07-15

I welcome our special visitors to the Public Gallery. We are joined by members of the family of the late Jennie Poole, in whose memory this Bill is named: her brother, Jason Poole; her parents, Jackie and Joe; her siblings, David and Clare; and her precious children, Nevaeh and Zack. They are most welcome to sit here for the final stages of Jennie's law. We welcome and thank them.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, line 24, to delete “convicted on indictment” and substitute “convicted, whether on indictment or summarily,”. I welcome Jennie's family. It is an honour for us to have you here. My amendment relates to section 1. This amendment is straightforward but important. As drafted, the Bill excludes convictions dealt with summarily in the District Court yet many domestic violence offences, including the offences of coercive control, assault causing harm and breaching a protection order, can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. Whether a case proceeds in one court or another should not determine whether a victim can benefit from the protections of this register. Women's Aid specifically highlighted this issue during pre-legislative scrutiny. This amendment seeks to address that gap.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. When I am starting off with something novel, however, I have to be cautious.

I vehemently support this Bill, but we cannot ignore the fact that, as matters currently stand, there are cases involving coercive control, assault causing harm and breaches of protection orders that can come before the District Court and that can be prosecuted summarily or upon indictment. The despicable people who engage in such behaviour and who are found guilty in an Irish court will not feature on this register. Therefore, when the Minister talks about the safest way of advancing the legislation, I am obliged to ask for whom is it safest? Women's Aid has already told us that this is an omission from the Bill that will create exceptions whereby violent men will be excluded from appearing on registers. It is incumbent upon us to listen to Women's Aid. It would be safer still for the Minister to accept amendment No. 1, which seeks to add the offences to which I refer. In terms of amendment No. 11, which I neglected to speak to earlier, what we are talking about are behaviours such as stalking and harassment. It would be important for those to be included. I again encourage the Minister to accept amendment No.1 in order to include the offences to which I refer.

As I mentioned on Second Stage, I welcome the fact that this Bill has progressed as speedily as it has. I have commended the Minister and his officials on prioritising what is a singular piece of legislation. It is a huge testimony to the family of Jennifer Poole, particularly Jason, because they have convinced the entirety of political opinion in this House of the merits of this measure. That is a phenomenal achievement on their part. I want to say to them that they have done Jennifer proud by being able to do so much. The Minister mentioned that the great thing about legislation is that once it is introduced, it can be amended at a later stage. However, he will know that the process in this regard is not simple. The key is always that when we have got to the point where legislation with such widespread political support has been introduced, we need to get it right. Amendments Nos. 9 10 and 12 are in my name. Amendment No. 9 proposes the following: In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”. The reason for this amendment is that there is a genuine concern that the ambit of the legislation is too narrow and will not capture the bulk of domestic violence offences. As has been mentioned, Women's Aid has warned that many domestic violence-related offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act are prosecuted summarily in the District Court and, therefore, would not be captured by the proposed register. We also know that many domestic charges are reduced to lesser offences through plea bargaining. I refer, for example, to a section 3 offence being reduced to a section 2 assault. This was the situation in one very high-profile case recently. Under the Bill, where a section 2 assault is committed against an intimate partner, it would result in that person not being included on the register when, in fact, we know that the offence is, most likely, part of a pattern of domestic violence and abuse. I again appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment and create an offence under section 2 where a crime is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person living in an intimate relationship in order that we might get to the core of this. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I ask him to provide assurances, insofar as it is possible, that the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, will take into account the fact that any plea bargaining reducing a section 3 charge to a section 2 charge in a case of domestic violence would allow an offender to evade inclusion on the domestic violence register. This should be a caveat for the DPP in his or her consideration of plea bargains that might not have been in place heretofore. Amendment No. 10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them. For what I consider logical reasons, this should also be added to the list of offences. Amendment No. 12 states: In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(j) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”. This amendment adds a breach of a domestic violence order, as the Minister said, to the list of offences that will lead to people being included on the domestic violence register. This makes absolute sense. It will be a real omission if it is not included, particularly if we genuinely want this to be a domestic violence judgment register. One of the fears relating to this legislation, which has been mentioned here and in the Seanad, is that somebody might seek to look at the register. If somebody is going to look at this register, it means that there are concerns. If they look and see that somebody's name is not on it, that might give them a sense of unfounded relief. The Minister was at pains, and rightly so, to say that this is what it is and that it should not be taken as an absolute guarantee of anything. However, if somebody has been convicted of domestic violence offences, either summarily or in the context of a section 3 conviction, and is not included in the register, then the truth of the matter is that the register is not going to be as fulsome as it should be. This is the crucial point. We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court. The vast majority of cases involving sexual or gender-based violence or domestic abuse will never actually come before a court. When they do, even the most minor of offences are generally just the tip of the iceberg. If somebody is the subject of a summary conviction for domestic violence abuse, in the majority of, not all, cases, that is just a small signal of a pattern of abuse. Margaret Loftus made this point very passionately when she spoke at the justice committee's launch of the report on gender-based violence last week. She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered. It is usually after a prolonged period of abuse that somebody will get the wherewithal, the courage and the support necessary to bring that to the attention of the Garda. When somebody has managed to get to the point where they are making a complaint to the Garda and if the gardaí looking at the evidence see the merit of bringing a charge against the individual and they bring that to court and it results in a conviction, then absolutely there should be no question but that should be recorded in this register. I again appeal to the Minister. Let us get this right. Let us not depend on a future Minister or a future Oireachtas to fix this at a later stage. Let us actually ensure that we live up to the spirit of this legislation, which has come about from the campaign and work of Jason and the Poole family, by ensuring it is as comprehensive as possible. I again ask the Minister to consider these amendments even at this late stage.

I echo what the Minister said about the support across the House for the domestic violence register. That is really important because the model that we have landed on has been able to attract support. It is important to say that many people had very significant concerns about the idea of a domestic violence register. In some cases, they were very well-meaning people, including those representing people in domestic violence cases. In other cases, they were people involved in the legal profession and people involved in civil society. I appreciate the unanimity that we have landed on in the House. It took some time to get here. In considering these amendments, it is worth understanding why we have landed on the model that we have. I take a moment to welcome the Poole family to the Chamber in such large numbers. They are incredibly welcome, particularly Jason who has been the driving force behind this all the way through. When Jason first came to us about this, he always spoke about the most serious crimes. It was important that was the focus of what we were trying to do from the very beginning because, as we know, Jennie was the subject of an offence at the most serious level. It is important to remember who Jennie was. Jennie was a 24-year-old mother, a wonderful mother to Zach and Nevaeh. She was a healthcare worker in our community. She was a much-loved member of her camogie team in Erin's Isle. In many ways, she represented the very best of our community. We all know what happened on 17 April 2021. I spoke about it yesterday. I certainly do not intend to speak about it today because that man has taken enough from the Poole family without my reliving it here today. There was so much hurt. The hurt centred on the fact that behind that tragedy, Jennie was not aware that her ex-partner had a previous conviction. Not only was she not aware but she did not even have a mechanism to find out that he had a previous conviction. That tragedy was further compounded because it was not until the court case that Jennie's family realised that conviction was there. In trying to pursue Jennie's law, as Jason eventually called it, he came to me with a list of ten different areas, some of which the Minister has moved on in terms of access rights for a parent or a partner who's involved in a murder and so on. On this specific issue, the idea of granting access, we always knew there would be problems in establishing a register, similar to the sex offenders register. I acknowledge the work of Senator Fiona O'Loughlin, whose original Bill used that type of model because that is where we first thought we could progress it. All the other issues around people's privacy and GDPR started to become the blockages as to why this could not be done. I acknowledge that under a different Minister the Department of justice was extremely opposed to this Bill. The replies that come from the Minister, often written by the departmental officials, were extremely opposed to how this Bill could be introduced. The mechanism the Minister has used - it is very simple mechanism - is the reason we have got here. That is why I want to speak to the amendments. Essentially, the mechanism is that justice should be done in public but because journalists are no longer present in our courts all the time, that can often go unreported. The simplicity of that is that justice should be done in public. As already happens in civil cases, for the very first time the Minister has now found a way for judgments in criminal cases to be reported on the Courts Service website. It has never been done before for other offences. For the first time, that moves us away from all the issues of privacy and it moves us into a very simple sphere that justice should be done in public and, therefore, if a decision of the court is public, it is already a matter of public record and all we are doing is publishing that on the website. When we do that, we are inevitably balancing the independence of the Judiciary. That is why there is some discretion in the legislation because, of course, there is a separation of powers. In striking that balance, the Minister is trying to acknowledge that. There were also concerns over expanding it beyond the current number of offences, which this group of amendments seeks to do, including murder, manslaughter, rape, strangulation, coercive control and so on. The reason for that was that in some cases those representing victims of domestic violence were fearful that it would put people off seeking a barring order, for example. In the initial stages there was talk about all of that being included in it. The Minister has limited it to the most serious offences, the fatal end of things, for a reason. Some of it is based on the concerns of people who represent people involved in domestic violence. I just put the details of the process on the record because that is why we landed on this. It is not because we decided to limit certain elements of this. It is because we are juggling that balance between the Judiciary and the powers of this House. For the first time, criminal judgments will be published on a website. It is this model and not the other model of, for example, a sex offender's register which involves a different methodology and process. I say that to the Deputies who tabled these amendments because they might not have been aware of how we landed where we are. I will not speak again on the other amendments. I acknowledge how far we have come. I acknowledge the Poole family. This law will be transformative in helping people across Ireland who are in a relationship to discover whether their partner had a domestic violence conviction. In her life as a mother, as a care worker and as a club member, Jennie gave so much to the community where she lived. She stood for everything that is so positive about our community. It is fitting that even in the tragedy that she and her family have experienced, she has continued to inspire this House to pass Jennie's law. I commend the Minister on his work and I commend the Bill to the House.

Yesterday I thanked the Minister for using the Seanad route to get this legislation through so it could be passed before the summer recess. That confirms the Minister's own acknowledgement of the urgency of getting this legislation passed. There is a balance between the urgency of getting something passed, but also the urgency of getting something passed that is going to impact as well as it could. That is why I support amendment No. 1 and the other suite of amendments because we are not going far enough. In essence, we need to challenge and push things out. If something needs to be tweaked afterwards, that is the better option rather than being very conservative starting out. If we look at the District Court situation, for example in terms of summary convictions, we are talking about convictions of up to 12 months. If I was a woman or if it was my daughter or any family member, and I found out that someone had a conviction of up to 12 months for violently assaulting someone, giving them a black eye or damaging their eye socket, I would want to know about it. These types of incidents start very incrementally. They start off with one thing. It gradually escalates. The violence becomes the norm. The coercive control is brought into it. It is not usually a situation where someone starts off in a controlling relationship as the essence of extreme violence. It works up to that situation. Therefore, you do have to nip it in the bud, so to speak. I am not a legal expert on this but I have been raising issues on the related in camera rule and the need to remove it, because that is going to act as a chilling effect on people reporting cases in the first place. However, anything that encourages reporting has to be welcomed. If we look at where violations of court orders happen, they happen in the District Courts above and beyond. Regarding the type of domestic violence incidences, the vast majority of them are within the District Court as well. We can move beyond that and say we will start off with the most serious cases but the most serious cases are arising because people go away with the less serious cases. These are often people with multiple, sometimes different, convictions in multiple relationships. We are talking about individuals whose violence is not confined to a single relationship. They always blame their partner at the time but these are people with a propensity for violence and that violence is acted out not just on partners but on other people in society as well. If it is not dealt with it right from the outset it is going to create more problems. I see there are some issues in relation to, for example, starting with the District Court cases in that there might be a risk of retaliation because people know their name is going to be listed. I acknowledge this is a risk. We are having a different level of argument about the three-year process and the right to have their name removed from the register; that is a later discussion, and I believe five years would be more sufficient. At any stage, if they behave themselves, people will have their names taken off the register. However, the types of offences that should go onto the register in the first place should be violent assaults such as giving a partner a black eye. To me, that is sufficient to show that person cannot be trusted. If a relationship breaks up and there is a new partner, they have an absolute right to know about that because next time it could be a broken eye socket or the use of a weapon. We have to deal with it there and then rather than let someone get away with it. Another point is that in a lot of the convictions in the court people do not serve anywhere near the actual sentence they are given. They are out and about, with no real consequences and then they feel a sense of impunity. We have to nip it in the bud. There will be a lot of legal opposition to various aspects of this legislation in any event, so let us just throw the whole lot in - unless what the Minister is really saying is that there is resourcing issues in terms of the District Court's capacity. That is a valid concern as well, but at some stage we have to draw the line and say this is the sort of offence that is not acceptable in any civilised society. You are not allowed to violently attack your partner. We can have nuances and definitions but whacking your partner violently to me is the line we draw. If that is in the remit of the District Court, so be it. It needs to be put on the record to protect the partner and to protect future people.

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. If we look at the convictions in this legislation that will trigger the mechanism for disclosure, we see that it includes a vast array of offences. As I said earlier on, obviously it covers murder, manslaughter, rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, but then it also covers non-fatal strangulation causing harm, non-fatal strangulation causing serious harm, assault causing harm, assault causing serious harm, threats to kill, harassment, endangerment, false imprisonment, coercive control and the spreading of intimate images. There is a whole variety of convictions there that will trigger the statutory scheme under this. I want to be respectful to Deputies Gannon and Carthy but if we go down the route of putting in District Court summary convictions this is going to become unmanageable. It is appropriate to leave this on indictable offences, convictions on indictment and then the discretionary mechanism is available to the court. I say with great respect to Deputies Gannon and Carthy that it is not a good idea to include a vast array of offences. It will undermine the effectiveness of the scheme.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, line 29, after “subsection (4)” to insert “and (4A)”. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are in my own name and I also record my support for amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Gannon. Amendment No. 2 may appear to be technical and inserts “and (4A)” after subsection (4). Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert in page 4, between lines 7 and 8, the following: “(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that— (a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given, (b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and (c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”. To give the logic for these amendments, Safe Ireland has argued for the provisions in amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to be included in this legislation. These amendments are about ensuring victims are properly protected when deciding whether a judgment should be included on the register. We know a conviction does not always bring an end to abuse. Many victims continue to experience intimidation, harassment and coercive control long after court proceedings have been concluded. Therefore, victims should also have the right to withdraw their consent at any point before publication of this register and that decision should be fully respected. The objective is simple. It is to ensure that victims can make fully informed decisions in a way that prioritises their safety and well-being at all times. That is a sentiment that is widely shared. Deputy Gannon's amendment essentially puts in a provision that in the event of somebody being deceased the family should be consulted and I fully support that.

I will equally be supporting Deputy Carthy's amendments. My amendment seeks to recognise that, where a victim has tragically died, he or she can no longer express a view on whether a judgment should appear on the register. The Bill currently leaves that decision entirely to the court. Our amendment simply requires the court, where appropriate, to consult the victim's family before reaching that decision. It does not give families a veto, nor does it remove the court's discretion. It simply ensures that, in these most difficult cases, those closest to the victims have an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.

I thank Deputies Carthy and Gannon for their amendments. Deputy Gannon's amendment seeks to cover a situation where the victim is deceased, so it is either a case of murder or manslaughter. In that instance, the provision as it is at present, in subsection (4), states, "In relation to subsection (2)(d), where the victim is deceased, it shall be at the discretion of the court as to whether a judgment is to be included in the Register." When it comes to a court case where somebody has been convicted of murder or manslaughter, obviously there will be an opportunity for a victim impact statement for the family members. Family will always be able to express their view. However, putting specifically into statute, as Deputy Gannon has suggested, that there has to be consultation with the family of the victim is difficult from the point of view of a court. The court is the one that is exercising its discretion as to whether the judgment should be published. Deputy Gannon's amendment states, "the court shall, after consultation with the family". It is unusual in legislation to talk about a court having consultation with the family. I know the purpose of it but there is a mechanism for the family to be heard. I think it would be inappropriate to include that in the Bill. As well as that, families are not always unified in their approach to a particular issue. We need to be much more specific in respect of what "family" means. Where the family of a deceased victim has views on whether a judgment should be included in the register, attention will of course be paid to those views by the judge, and that is something that the judge will be able to consider. I now turn to Deputy Carthy's amendments Nos. 2 and 4. These relate to the victim's consent, ensuring that it is freely and voluntarily given. They specify that the court must be satisfied that the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable them to make that decision. I am not going to accept these amendments either. We all agree that specialist domestic violence services are indispensable, and they are available. Colleagues will be aware that I provide a huge amount of funding to Cuan, which in turn provides it to those agencies. It is important to point out that these organisations make a valuable contribution. However, that recognition does not mean that every aspect of their work should be written into legislation. The amendments proposed raise significant practical concerns. It is simply not clear how a court could determine whether a victim had received "sufficient information and access to appropriate supports", nor is there an objective standard for what constitutes informed and safe decision-making. I understand the intentions but I think the language is too vague and subjective and would create uncertainty rather than the clarity that we all want.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, lines 5 to 7, to delete all words from and including “it” in line 5 down to and including line 7 and substitute the following: “the court shall, after consultation with the family of the victim where appropriate, determine whether a judgment is to be included in the Register.”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that— (a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given, (b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and (c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, are related, and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, line 33, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”. All of these amendments are linked and are the critical amendments that we will be discussing this evening. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are fairly simple in their wording. They are to substitute the words "5 years" where "3 years" is currently in place. Amendment No. 8 inserts the following section 9A on page 5: Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to— (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and (b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.". Amendment No. 8 is the second option for the Minister if he is of a mind to reject amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Bearing in mind that, as a result of the Government's position on the previous amendments, the bar to be included on this register is incredibly high under the Bill as it stands, somebody who is on the register that we are discussing has committed offences of a very serious nature. For all of the reasons I outlined earlier, I believe that the vast majority of abusers will never see their names published on this register. Therefore, to have such a high bar and then to allow a three-year mechanism whereby a person who has reached that bar and ended up on the register can apply to have his or her name removed from it is far too short. When you consider that, to be on the register, the crimes are way beyond what any reasonable person would want any of their loved ones to be exposed to in a relationship, certainly without them knowing. The key part of this is that being included on the domestic violence register is not actually an additional punishment. We talked about early convictions. If somebody has been convicted of a public order offence at the age of 19, 20, 21 or whatever, depending on the profile of the situation, if he or she happened to be in a local District or Circuit Court and the local newspaper was in place, everybody can find that information out very quickly, because it is going to be googlable forever. There is a right to be forgotten and all of that, but generally speaking, that will be common knowledge forever. It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others. If we agree with that premise, which I think was the central point of the Deputy opposite, Paul McAuliffe, regarding the rationale for the approach that has been taken, then there is no rationale for allowing people to have themselves removed after only three years following a prosecution. This is the amendment, above all, that I appeal to the Minister to accept because the logic stands. There is an argument that five years is too short, but I table it with regard to the legislation and understanding that this is just an application. Amendment No. 8 is a secondary position that seeks to allow a longer period for removal in some instances. That should be considered with regard to offences at the most serious end of the spectrum, obviously including murder, manslaughter and rape. People would be surprised to learn - after all the effort that has gone into this and the campaigning by the Poole family with the Minister and his Department - that we would have a situation where there is a register in place, narrow as it is, but after three years, somebody on the register can apply to be taken off it. In my mind, that is far too short. Five years is much more reasonable. Above all, my appeal to the Minister is to accept amendment No. 5.

I thank Deputy Carthy for putting down this amendment. I will start by disagreeing with him, however. I disagree with him when he says that the bar is incredibly high for the triggering of this statutory scheme. That is not correct. If the Deputy looks at the legislation, he will see 17 offences will trigger the scheme. Seventeen pieces of legislation or 17 convictions that will trigger it. These are convictions that are happening in Circuit Criminal Courts, and, to a lesser extent, Central Criminal Courts, on a continuous basis. It is not correct to say that the bar is incredibly high. The issue here is that if somebody receives one of these convictions, and the scheme is triggered and the judgment is published on the register, if that person gets a term of imprisonment, they cannot apply for it to be removed. The default position is that the judgment stays on the register. There is nothing in the scheme to remove the judgment from the register. The only way that the scheme affects that is that it allows a person, three years after they have been released from prison, to bring an application to have their name removed. That means that they have to go into open court and bring the application. They have to satisfy a judge that it is appropriate that they be removed. It may be the case that the judge will refuse the relief that they are seeking. In order to do that, they will have to set out some convincing evidence to the court that will satisfy it that it believes this person is no longer the threat that resulted in them being put on the register in the first place. What Deputy Carthy's amendment proposes is that we say that they cannot bring the application until five years. In practical terms, the court will have to be satisfied in any event, based on evidence that is put before it, that the person is no longer a threat. I know it is not something we are discussing here, and others mentioned this when legislation was mooted, but I have to give consideration to the possibility of rehabilitation. I know that is not something that is relevant in very many cases but I have to give consideration, as Minister, to the possibility of rehabilitation. I have to have regard for proportionality in the context of this Bill. This is new legislation. I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register. It allows that to be done either three years after he is released from prison or, if he is not imprisoned, three years after the conviction. To be absolutely clear, the expiry of the three-year period does not entitle a person to get off the register. Most people will stay on this indefinitely. The only time a person can get off it is if they bring an application which is successful. What happens at present is that I am allowing them, after three years, to make an application. The final decision, and the responsibility for ensuring it is the right one, rests with the court.

I will make a couple of ripostes. In terms of the bar being set high and the logic behind using that phrase, I am sure the Minister will accept, and he probably knows this better than anybody in the Chamber, that it is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of cases of abuse are never reported. That has been well-documented. The vast majority of reported abuses never result in court cases at all. The majority that result in court cases do not subsequently result in a conviction for one of the 17 offences the Minister has outlined. When I say that the bar is high, it is not to suggest that it is incredibly narrow but it is a high bar. I hope the Minister will take that on board. In respect of the point around rehabilitation, the aforementioned young fella or young woman who had a public order offence and happened to end up in a court when their local journalist was in attendance are statistically much more likely to have rehabilitated themselves than someone who has committed a sexual offence but they are in the local paper. It is published. They can do nothing about it. That is just the outworkings of justice happening publicly. I understand the Minister's rationale for saying that there has to be a point of appeal or a legal mechanism by which somebody can ask for their name to be withdrawn. I have very little sympathy for them, to be quite frank, and I hope that any court in which such an application comes before it will have very little sympathy but the point is around when that avenue should become available. Three years after such a conviction is far too short. From speaking to campaigners on this issue, this is a position that is held. That is why I would make the argument strongly that five years - arguably too short in itself - is much more reasonable.

I had not intended to speak but I fully support Deputy Carthy's amendment. When the Minister mentioned the possibility of rehabilitation, it raised my antennae because I am somebody who fundamentally believes in rehabilitation. We talk about it in this House all the time. I do not believe going onto this register is the punishment. Going onto this register is to send a warning to any potential partner in the future, which is why the rehabilitation of the perpetrator is not to the fore of my concerns here at all. In fact, more to the point, a person who is seeking to remove themselves after three years and potentially not having a conversation about such horrific past behaviour seems like an attempt to deceive. I think three years is far too short. I do not think rehabilitation comes into this register. It is a completely separate issue and is an allowance for future deception. Five years is too short, to be honest, but three years certainly is.

I agree with my colleagues. I believe five years is to short, to be honest. I find that no argument has been made for the three years at all. It seems incredibly short. The idea that a person who commits such an offence can apply for this after three years does not sit well with me. I do not think would sit well with the majority of Members in this House. I note the Minister's choice of words regarding rehabilitation. I understand where he is coming from in relation to his position as the Minister for justice but it is a separate discussion. It is not relatable to the time period of three years in any way, shape or form. In this spirit of collegiality, the Minister should consider this amendment and accept it. I know it is very unusual and it would not change anything substantive but it would be a longer timeframe, which would certainly be far more palatable to us all.

I welcome the clarification that it is three years after the sentence has been served. If someone has served a seven- or eight-year sentence under one of the 17 offences, they would not be able to apply for the removal until they get to year ten or 11. I welcome that clarification. The idea that someone comes off three years after the conviction is not the case; it is three years after the sentence has concluded. It is interesting that the Minister used the word "rehabilitation" and that it struck a chord in this House because, if I recall, that was the wording used during pre-legislative scrutiny by the Law Society. That gives us an insight into how a court might assess this legislation if it comes before it. The Law Society's argument in that discussion was that the sentence was the punishment and that an additional burden being put on the person who had committed the offence could be seen by a court as being unreasonable. I am with members of the Opposition here. Whether it is ten, 15 or 20 years, I have no problem with the time but what I am concerned about is that, were the Minister to extend it now, we could find ourselves in 18 months' time having no Jennie’s law at all. A court could strike out this law because it did not have regard to a principle that nobody in this House might have sympathy for but that the court assessing the law inevitably would, namely, the balancing of the two rights. Having fought for so long to have this law in place in respect of the 17 offences we are speaking about, we could end up not having it at all. If there is room for it to be extended, I would not oppose that but I want to be very careful that we have something robust that stands up so that we do not end up with no register at all.

I thank colleagues for their contributions. As Deputies know, I have no difficulty accepting amendments from colleagues in this House if I believe they are correct and beneficial to the legislation. I have done it before and will do it again. I hear what Deputy Kelly says but collegiality does not come into it. We can be very collegial but when it comes to legislation, I cannot just decide that I want to be friendly with people in the House and, so, I will accept the amendment.

That is not what I meant, to be fair.

I know, but collegiality is not a reason to accept an amendment.

I understand that but that is not what I meant.

Deputy McAuliffe mentioned something. There was a difficult passage between me getting into office and me introducing this legislation into the Houses of the Oireachtas-----

I appreciate that.

-----and it involved getting a lot of different views and advices. I remember a lot of coverage a year ago where lots of groups were opposed to this and it was all about the issues that could arise in respect of it. I have managed to get a balancing area - a landing area - that has the support of the House, which is the most significant thing, and has also enabled me to get advice from the Attorney General telling me that we can proceed with this. As Deputy McAuliffe mentioned a few moments ago, what I do not want to do is find that, when a judge is deciding whether to add somebody’s judgment to the register, they say that the person will not be able to bring an application for five years after their conviction or after they are released. It is a question of balancing it. The most important thing is for us to get this up and running and it to be effective. As Deputy McAuliffe said, it would reduce its effectiveness if it was the case that it was moved out to five years after release from prison. You could have been in prison for ten years and then you would have to wait for five years. On Deputy Gannon’s comments, the point I was making about rehabilitation was that going on the register was obviously not a form of punishment, but we have to recognise that an individual may be reformed and may have changed from the person they were when they committed the offence that led to them being put on the register. If a court was satisfied that the person had gone through treatment and reformed themselves - maybe there were major addiction issues or other issues in their lives that they had overcome and there was evidence to a court to suggest that the threat that had been there when they were put on the register was no longer there – that is a factor that I have to give some recognition to - not a huge amount, but some. It is important in terms of balancing the conflicting interests in the legislation.

For the information of Members, the Poole family are in the Public Gallery. The Ceann Comhairle has already extended a welcome to the family, but I want to bring it to the attention of the Chamber, now that there are so many of us here, that they are here. They have achieved a lot. I acknowledge their presence. Thank you for your patience as you watch the debate.