Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997

Vol. 478 No. 4

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Bill, 1997: Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

Amendment No. 1 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 8 is consequential. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 8 together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following definitions:

"‘contaminated blood' means blood which is contaminated with any disease, virus, agent or organism which if passed into the blood stream of another could infect the other with a life threatening or potentially life threatening disease;

‘contaminated fluid' means fluid or substance which is contaminated with any disease, virus, agent or organism which if passed into the blood stream of another could infect the other with a life threatening or potentially life threatening disease;

‘contaminated syringe' means a syringe which has in it or on it contaminated blood or contaminated fluid;".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.

We now come to amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 3 is related. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, subsection (1), line 26, after "intention of" to insert "or where there is a likelihood of".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 34, after "intention of" to insert "or where there is a likelihood of".

Amendment agreed to.

We now come to amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 5 is consequential and amendment No. 9 is related. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 9 together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) A person who in committing or attempting to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2)—

(a) injures a third person with a syringe by piercing his or her skin, or

(b) sprays, pours or puts onto a third person blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood,

resulting in the third person believing that he or she may become infected with disease as a result of the injury or action caused shall be guilty of an offence.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, subsection (3), line 37, to delete "subsection (1) or (2)" and substitute "subsection (1), (2) or (3)".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 is in the name of Deputy O'Donoghue. Amendments Nos. 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are related. I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23 together, if that is satisfactory.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, subsection (3) (a), line 40, to delete "not exceeding 12 months" and substitute "not less than 12 months and not greater than 2 years".

The philosophy behind this amendment is to provide that, in connection with serious syringe offences, there would be mandatory or minimum sentences. The reason for this is to ensure that society's abhorrence of syringe offences is expressed in legislation and imposed as a statutory imperative by the courts. The Minister's proposals are to the effect that on summary conviction a person would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine not exceeding £1,500 or both. Our proposal is that the term of imprisonment would be not less than 12 months and not greater than two years. The Minister proposes, in cases where the conviction is on indictment, that the term of imprisonment be for a term not exceeding five years, whereas we propose that the term of imprisonment would be not less than five years and not more than seven years.

In relation to the offence of, without lawful excuse, making a threat by any means intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or to cause serious harm to that other or a third person, we propose that the sentence, where it is on summary conviction, should be for a term not less than 12 months and not more than two years, and where the conviction is on indictment, a term of imprisonment not less than ten years and not more than 12 years. In relation to various other offences set out in this legislation dealing with syringe attacks, we consistently propose minimum mandatory sentencing.

I am aware there is considerable opposition in some quarters to the concept of mandatory sentencing and that the discretion, where sentencing is concerned, should always be allowed to rest with the Judiciary. It is not true, however, that this is postulated on any correct notion of the separation of powers. Minimum sentencing, or mandatory sentencing, does not in any way transgress the separation of powers which is a fundamental part of our democracy. I am satisfied that minimum or mandatory sentencing would not have any constitutional overtones in that it is allowed by the Constitution.

In our current law mandatory sentencing is allowed. In cases of murder, society is entitled to express its abhorrence of that crime by providing for a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in the event of an individual being found guilty of murder. In addition, a provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act, 1990, for minimum or mandatory sentencing whereby the murder of a member of the Garda Síochána carried a mandatory sentence of 40 years' imprisonment. There are other examples under the customs consolidation Acts of sanctions which are minimum or mandatory.

The only question for the House is whether it intends to provide for mandatory sentencing in cases of serious syringe attacks. There is a strong argument in favour of mandatory sentencing in respect of these particular offences. There has been a growth in syringe attacks over the past number of years. The last recorded figures indicate that in excess of 1,200 attacks occurred. That is serious and I have little doubt that when the 1996 and 1997 figures become available, they will indicate that the prevalence of these vicious offences in our society has increased. In those circumstances, it is clear that society has the right to respond swiftly, adequately and harshly.

It is sometimes forgotten that the victims of these kinds of offences go through harrowing ordeals. We have heard stories of people in taxis, in small retail outlets or on the streets being attacked by individuals with syringes. Sometimes these individuals do not use the syringe but threaten the victim with it. If the syringe is used, the victim is left in a considerable amount of difficulty and distress, and it takes a long period before the victim learns if he or she has been infected.

Criminal thugs who use syringes on the streets of this city and elsewhere need to learn a salutary lesson. They need to know, as a fact, that if they do it they face imprisonment for a certain time. It may seem to some people that the punishments I advocate in amendments I put forward to this legislation are harsh, but they are nothing in comparison to the trauma and distress suffered by victims.It is in that context and in a spirit of good faith that I put forward the amendments. Over the past two and a half years I have not often proposed minimum sentences — it has been the exception rather than the rule. The other occasion on which I did that, and will again this evening in the debate on a later Bill, was in the area of drug trafficking where I proposed a ten year minimum sentence for those found in possession of drugs with a street value of £10,000 or more with intent to supply.

I do not go along with the argument sometimes advanced that a harsh punishment for an offence will not deter people from committing an offence. This is arrant nonsense. If the punishment is harsh, if it reflects the seriousness of the offence which has been committed, and if an accused person realises this will be the certain punishment, there is no doubt but that it will result in a reduction in offences. Now is the time to clamp down on such offences which are a relatively new phenomenon here. Four years ago there were approximately 300 offences, the following year there were 500, and this has since risen to 1,200. There is danger of an epidemic of such offences on the streets of this city unless swift and adequate action is taken.

The legislative measures I have put before the House are required to eliminate this scourge from our society. If the warning is not taken, if the Government refuses to provide for minimum sentences for such offences, society will be entitled to ask why, and it will be entitled to know the answer which will be that the political will did not exist within the Government to ensure that sanctions would be provided in statute law to reflect the seriousness of the offences committed.

Deputy O'Donoghue is proposing amendments to the penalties provided for in sections 6, 7 and 8 covering syringe offences, section 9 covering the coercion offence, and section 10 dealing with harassment or, as it is commonly known, stalking. His proposals on each are as follows: (1) to create minimum sentences; (2) to increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction from one year to two years; and (3) to increase the maximum penalty on indictment to two years.

The Minister has provided in this Bill for a range of sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offences concerned. In relation to the offences to which these amendments refer, the maximum possible penalties range from five years to life imprisonment. The penalties proposed in the Bill are tough and proportionate to the crimes to which they relate.

The first aspect of Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment, increasing the punishment for summary offences to two years imprisonment, is unacceptable. There are constitutional limits to the penalties which can be imposed if an offence is to be triable summarily. While the courts have not pronounced on the specifics of the upper limit, it is generally accepted that a two year maximum sentence for a summary offence is unsafe. It would take the offence in question out of the category of minor offence, which is the only type of offence which, under the Constitution, may be tried in courts of summary jurisdiction.

Deputy O'Donoghue proposes also a range of minimum sentences. Ministers for Justice have, over the years, generally opposed mandatory penalties on the grounds that it is more appropriate for the Oireachtas to provide maximum penalties and for the courts, having heard all of the circumstances, to impose appropriate sentences up to the maximum limit. As I have indicated, the Minister is providing in relation to the most serious offences, such as intentionally injuring someone with a contaminated syringe, that the courts can impose up to life imprisonment. There is provision for an appeal to be taken against unduly lenient sentences.

The House will be aware that the Law Reform Commission has published a report on sentencing which addresses the issue of minimum sentences, among other aspects of sentencing policy. That report is under consideration in the Department. The commission recommends not only that the Legislature refrain from the introduction of minimum sentences but that any existing minimum sentences be abolished. The Minister is, therefore, not prepared to accept Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment in this respect.

The third aspect of Deputy O'Donoghue's amendments concerns the increase by two years of the maximum penalty possible on conviction on indictment for the offences concerned. The Minister has carefully examined these proposals. Without going into detail, those proposals relate to amendments Nos. 18 and 23. When we get to that stage I will, if it is acceptable, read the proposals into the record and have the Bills Office draft the necessary amendment. If I may, I will read that now.

The Minister of State may give prior notice of the intention to move that amendment.

It is the intention to replace Opposition amendment No. 18 by deleting "5" and substituting "7" in subsection (4) (b), page seven, line 49. That partly meets what Deputy O'Donoghue is seeking. It is also intended to replace Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment No. 23 by deleting "5" and substituting "7" in page nine, line 14, subsection (6) (b).

This is a particularly important Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is increasing the sentences and providing for reasonably substantial sentences. The point Deputy O'Donoghue is making is that the use of syringes is becoming increasingly common, particularly in disadvantaged areas where people are regularly under threat of violence. Threatening someone with a syringe is just the same as using a gun except that the victim does not necessarily know the outcome for some time. Unfortunately people are prepared to ensure that a victim suffers the greatest possible damage by using blood in syringes — I am aware that sometimes syringes contain just coloured liquid so that the victim is frightened, but he or she will not know for a long time what has happened.

This is something that must be rooted out of society. We cannot tolerate such behaviour. Only last night in my constituency an 83 year old woman was attacked viciously by drug addicts seeking money. She could not be allowed the decency of a peaceful life in a fine community. Someone stalked her, followed her to her house, broke in, tied her up and beat her in the process for a paltry £10 or £20. That is the kind of society that is out there.

The Minister says it is generally accepted that in the context of the Constitution a minimum sentence of two years would be unsafe for a summary conviction. I have been listening to that argument for many years, but when it was made before there was a much calmer atmosphere in society generally, a better environment, safer streets. Now we are faced with the huge challenge posed by drugs, one that has not yet been overcome. In my community reasonable progress is being made and it is hoped that will continue. Fianna Fáil has a major programme to follow through in that area. We hope to be in a position to do so after the next general election. This is a major problem for people who cannot live a reasonable and respectable life. In the middle of all that we are told that the proposed minimum sentence is too great for a summary case. It used to be that a fine of £1,000 was too great for a summary case, but that was increased to £1,500. We need to test the case for increasing minimum penalties. If it is accepted that we should increase minimum sentences, they may as well be imposed at District Court level. People who use syringes to threaten, injure and possibly kill need to know that when they come before the courts they will receive swift justice.

There is savage warfare and the gardaí must be there to stop it. There is a high incidence of crime in my constituency. Many housing estates have been built in the area and drug dealers have moved into some of them. I am contacted on a regular basis about those people and the Garda know where they are, but they do not have the manpower to cover that work. We must reconsider the allocation of members of the force to those districts. Gardaí do marvellous work, facing down criminals and trying to get information, but they are not able to cope with the problem because they do not have the resources.

We must help the Garda in its fight against crime. The proposals put forward by Deputy O'Donoghue are aimed at strengthening the hands of the Garda and the community against the criminal. If the people who reject those proposals lived with us and saw the position they would quickly change their attitude. They would not tolerate a situation where parents cannot allow their teenage children out on the streets, as is the case in communities throughout Dublin. We must do what we can to change that position, otherwise we are not doing our job. There is no point saying that a two year prison sentence may not be acceptable in legal circles, that one year might be acceptable but that two years might be too long. We must reconsider the way we deal with those problems, otherwise we are wasting our time.

Unless the Garda has support in the legislation to crack down on criminals, we will not win this battle, and we must win it. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the attitude adopted by him and the Minister to this matter. They should realise that people want swift action and real justice.They want crime tackled at the roots by having syringes regarded as lethal weapons. I accept the Minister has gone some way towards meeting the pleadings of Deputy O'Donoghue in the past year and a half or so on this issue, but the response should not be too little too late. It is already too late — we should have moved much faster — but it should not be too little. The Minister should either accept Deputy O'Donoghue's amendments or consider them for Report Stage.

I do not agree with the Minister's view that there would be a constitutional difficulty with a court of summary jurisdiction imposing a sentence of two years. It is important to realise that the jurisdiction of the District Court has been extended considerably in recent years, not only on the civil side. For example, a district justice may disqualify a person from driving for a period of two years because the individual was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That is only one of a number of examples I could give.

It is important to spell out what we are speaking about. I propose that a person who injures another by piercing the skin of that person with a syringe or threatens to so injure another with a syringe with the intention of causing that person to believe that he or she may become infected with disease as a result of the injury caused or threatened should, on summary conviction, be given a minimum prison sentence of 12 months and, on indictment, where the offence is even more serious, a minimum sentence of ten years.

I propose that a person who has with him or her in any place a syringe or any blood in a container, intended by him or her unlawfully to cause or threaten to cause injury to or to intimidate another, should, on summary conviction, be given a minimum prison sentence of 12 months and, on indictment, a minimum sentence of seven years. I propose that a person who places or abandons a syringe in any place in such a manner that it injures or is likely to injure, cause a threat to or frighten another should, on summary conviction, be given a minimum prison sentence of 12 months and, on indictment, a minimum sentence of five years.

I propose that a person who, with a view to compelling another to abstain from doing or to do any act which the other person has a lawful right to do or to abstain from doing, wrongfully and without lawful authority uses violence to or intimidates the other person or a member of the family of the other person, or injures or damages the property of the other person, or persistently follows the other person about from place to place, or watches or besets the premises or other place where the other person resides, works or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such premises or place, or follows the other person with one or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any public place should be given a minimum sentence of 12 months on summary conviction and, on indictment, a minimum of five years. In regard to harassment, I propose that the minimum sentence should be 12 months and, on indictment, five years. The Minister rejects all those proposals.

I firmly believe that the general public would support the proposals I put forward as they are reasonable in the context of the offences about which we are speaking. The legislation contains many admirable provisions. In Fianna Fáil's Bill on aggravated robbery I specifically provided for minimum sentencing for syringe attacks. There has been a significant increase in the number of such crimes in recent years and, unless something is done to arrest the problem, the graph will continue to indicate an increase. If something is not nipped in the bud, particularly if it relates to a criminal offence resulting from the use of illegal drugs, it tends to become endemic in society. In such circumstances, it would be remiss of me not to put these amendments to a vote. Unless we provide for minimum sentencing for syringe attacks they will continue unabated and that would be a grave tragedy for the victims of such crime.

Some of those victims recently described to me in horrifying detail the terror, fear, trauma and distress they and their families experienced as they waited to discover if they had been infected. The trauma experienced when faced with a blood filled syringe is similar to that experienced when a loaded gun is brandished in front of one's face. We must decide what to do about such attacks and it is of fundamental importance that a correct decision is made. We should decide to impose a minimum sentence, particularly for syringe attacks.

Society has the right to express its abhorrence at certain offences by providing for minimum sentencing. This is not something I would advocate in all cases. While I recognise the need for judicial discretion, judges stated recently that they would have imposed greater sentences if they were not constrained from doing so by precedent.The Judiciary is often labelled as being soft when imposing sanctions when it is merely administering the law of the land. Precedent is frequently not appreciated by those who comment on or read about such cases.

Mandatory sentencing has its drawbacks in that it removes the judicial discretion desirable in most cases. In some cases society must directly decide how people should be punished if they behave in a certain manner. We tend to make excuses for some criminals by claiming they come from dysfunctional families and were disadvantaged at birth. Since time immemorial natural law has dictated there is not a human being born of full mind who does not know, having reached the age of reason, the difference between the right and wrong. While I understand the underlying causes of crime must be tackled, individuals must be made realise they are responsible for their actions. Many men and women from dysfunctional and disadvantaged families have gone on to make tremendous contributions to their respective societies.

Everybody knows it is a grave offence to wield a syringe in another person's face. The individual wielding the syringe is also aware of that. There is no objective reason society, through its elected representatives, should not make a decision to punish, with certitude, that type of offence.

Deputy O'Donoghue is speaking to the converted. The Minister for Justice appreciates the seriousness of the crime problem and has introduced a series of stringent measures to ensure law-abiding citizens have the right to walk the streets in peace. The Bill is not soft on the type of criminal to which the Deputy referred. Deputy O'Donoghue, perhaps unwittingly, tended to suggest the cause of the crime problem rests with the Minister. The society, of which we are all a part, is the cause of the problem. Those inside and outside this House are collectively to blame for not dictating before now that we should act in a different fashion in regard to crime. When the Minister came into office she had to tackle the problem to which Deputy O'Donoghue referred while at the same time ensuring the rule of law was not brought into disrepute by introducing unsafe measures.

There are many examples of where it could have been deemed unconstitutional to impose particular penalties. The last thing we need in the fight against crime is the introduction of a penalty that could ultimately be proven unsafe. In those circumstances the criminals would win. That is not what we are or should be about in this House. The maximum prison sentence proposed for injuring or threatening to injure with a syringe or for throwing blood at a person or threatening to do so is ten years. I accept Deputy O'Donoghue's suggestion that we should send a message to criminals who threaten people with blood filled syringes. That is what is proposed. A prison sentence of ten years for that offence sends a clear message. By suggesting something else the message might not be as clear. A need is being addressed by this section. The proposals are reasonable and adequate. A penalty of ten years' imprisonment is substantial. The Minister and the Department do not see any need to increase it. If at some time in the future it appears an increase in that sentence would have a major impact, I am sure that could be done, but I do not believe that the would-be criminal considering the situation as presented at this stage will be dramatically changed as a result of suggesting one particular sentence or another. The sentence proposed for this offence is quite severe and should have the effect of impeding the criminal sufficiently to convince him or her the route he or she proposes is not correct.

I deny Deputy Woods's suggestion that the gardaí do not have the necessary resources and support to tackle the problem. The reverse is the case. The Minister appreciates the problems faced by the gardaí at present. The fight against modern organised and drug related crime has been in need of address for a long time. In some parts of this city and country this problem was flagged many years ago by Members of this House, but it is only at this stage that the penny has dropped in society. It took some considerable time before society recognised it was under attack and as a result this House had to respond in the strongest possible fashion. That is what the Minister is doing. I do not accept that the necessary resources are not being made available. More resources and a greater concentration of gardaí are available than previously. That has not happened because of a knee-jerk reaction but as a result of a careful and calculated study of the seriousness of the problem which led to the introduction of a series of measures, one of which is before us.

Deputy Woods also suggested that neither the Minister nor the Department is aware of the situation.We all work in constituencies, some of which are close to Dublin city and others near major cities throughout the country. It is not true — and unfair to suggest — that the Minister and the Department are not aware of the position. They are fully aware and have been aware of it for some time. It is as a result of their awareness of the seriousness of the problem that these stringent and serious measures are being introduced. They are not the type of measures that would have been introduced in this House ten years ago. We should remember that we had to undergo a sea change to reach the stage we are at now. Some of us, like Deputy O'Donoghue, have been Members for some time and we witnessed the changes that have taken place.

Deputy O'Donoghue suggested we should introduce maximum and mandatory sentences and he also suggested that judicial discretion could be removed in some cases, but it is no harm for that provision to be in place. Minimum or maximum sentences when available can be handed down by judges on the day in question. They are in a better position than we are to make an appropriate decision in a case. It is not always easy to make generalisations and to achieve the optimum by way of general application.

The ten years' prison sentence proposed by the Minister is quite severe and the seven years' prison sentence for possession is also quite severe. I indicated what I proposed to do in lieu of accepting Deputy O'Donoghue's amendments Nos. 18 and 23. That will go some way towards resolving the problem, meeting the concerns expressed by the Deputy and keeping within a reasonable guide from the point of view of dispensing justice.

We must be clear that the Minister for Justice is not proposing in this legislation that people found guilty of syringe attacks would receive a prison sentence of five, seven, ten years or 12 months. Depending on the seriousness of the offence she is proposing that the court could impose a prison sentence of up to 12 months. The prison sentence could be one, two or three months or a suspended sentence. A prison sentence of up to five years could be one, two, three or four years or less than a year. A prison sentence of up to seven years or up to ten years could be less than one year. I propose that as a matter of certainty we lay down in the legislation the precise number of years a person should serve as a minimum. That is the fundamental difference between the Minister and me on this matter. It is a profound one. It is a difference of philosophy as to how the sanction should be imposed by the court. I say it should be mandatory, but the Minister says it should be discretionary. Since I strongly believe the prison sentence should be mandatory for these vicious offences, I will be pressing my amendment.

Deputy O'Donoghue's simplified explanation of the amendment is not useful to the debate because it is a simplification. I am not a lawyer, nor do I wish to be one, but it is difficult to understand how in all cases, regardless of the circumstances, Deputy O'Donoghue, as a lawyer, suggests the maximum penalty should apply. I am sure he must have ample experience of successfully making the case that while circumstances may have appeared identical there were mitigating circumstances that had to be taken into account. Hence, the Minister is quite correct in suggesting that the sentence should be up to a maximum period, and that it should be for the judges on the day to decide which should apply. That is the best and safest way of dispensing justice in such cases.

Question proposed: "That the words and figure proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 41.

  • Ahern, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Thomas.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Bruton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Émmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Éamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, subsection (3) (b), line 2, to delete "not exceeding 10 years" and substitute "not less than 10 years and not greater than 12 years".

Question put: "That the words and figure proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 40.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Thomas.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Éamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, subsection (4), lines 3 to 6, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(4) (a) A person who intentionally injures another by piercing the skin of that other with a contaminated syringe shall by guilty of an offence.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, subsection (4), lines 9 to 19, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:

"(c) A person who in committing or attempting to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b)—

(i) injures a third person with a contaminated syringe by piercing his or her skin, or

(ii) sprays, pours or puts onto a third person contaminated blood,

shall be guilty of an offence.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, subsection (3) (a), line 41, to delete "or answer any reasonable question".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, subsection (4), line 5, to delete "answer any reasonable question or".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, subsection (7) (a), line 26, to delete "not exceeding 12 months" and substitute "not less than 12 months and not greater than 2 years".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, subsection (7) (b), line 29, to delete "not exceeding 7 years" and substitute "not less than 7 years and not greater than 9 years".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 31, to delete "injures" and substitute "is likely to injure another and does injure another".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 15 and 19 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 7, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) A person who intentionally places a contaminated syringe in any place in such a manner that it injures another shall be guilty of an offence.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 34, to delete "This section" and substitute "Subsection (1)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 7, subsection (4)(a), line 46, to delete "not exceeding 12 months" and substitute "not less than 12 months and not greater than 2 years".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 7, subsection (4) (b), line 49, to delete "not exceeding 5 years" and substitute "not less than 5 years and not greater than 7 years".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 18a:

In page 7, subsection (4) (b), line 49, to delete "5 years" and substitute "7 years".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 7, after line 49, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.

I move amendment No. 23a:

In page 9, subsection (6) (b), line 14, to delete "5 years" and substitute "7 years".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 16, before section 29, to insert the following new section:

"29.—Section 9 of the Criminal Law Act, 1997, is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the following paragraph:

‘(a) manslaughter, or causing serious harm with intent to do so, or'.".

Amendment agreed to.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 16, in column (3), line 20, to delete "16 to 34" and substitute "16 to 26, 28 to 34".

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We proceed to Report Stage in accordance with the Order of the House today and, since there are no amendments on Report, we proceed to Fifth Stage, again in accordance with the same Order.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate on this Bill brought about by the urgent necessity to respond to the ever increasing crime problem of which all Members are aware. Far from apportioning blame to any person or persons, party or parties, it is important to be united in taking on those disposed to attacks with syringes, which is the objective of the Bill's provisions. Unfortunately, as well as this insidious, invidious type of crime becoming so prevalent in recent years, it has also instilled fear in the public endeavouring to go about its everyday business. The Minister for Justice has responded with the appropriate degree of severity and stringency, ensuring that the law will not be brought into disrepute and proving that she struck the right balance.

It must also be borne in mind that nowadays, as befits the occasion, all our laws are subject to scrutiny in our lower and higher courts. The Minister and all Members are aware that the ever increasing incidence of crimes of this nature must be responded to in a specific manner. This objective has been achieved through the Bill in a manner which meets the requirements of the Minister and Opposition to the ultimate benefit of all.

This Bill represents a milestone in the sense that it sends a clear signal to those disposed to commit the kind of offences covered by its provisions.It is timely that that message goes out to them in a measured form, thereby strengthening the law. Its implementation, with a series of other measures introduced by the Minister over the past couple of years, will have a lasting impact on our legal system generally.

When history comes to be written I foresee its recognition of the fact that we as a society recognised a sea change was imperative, particularly in regard to this ever increasing problem. I remember listening to many contributions here when legislative provisions similar to those incorporated in this Bill would have been vehemently opposed. Therefore, its passage highlights the fact that, as time moves on, we must respond to prevailing circumstances.

I thank the Minister and officials of her Department who hope that their hard work on its preparation will yield its merited rewards and objective.

I thank the Minister, the Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, and the officials of the Department of Justice for their contributions to this significant Bill. I had earlier introduced the Punishment of Aggravated Robbery Bill, 1997, which no doubt heralded the arrival of this Bill, something of which we on this side of the House can be duly proud. I was disappointed to discover that the Minister of State and the Government generally want to take all the credit whenever something is successful but, whenever blame is to be apportioned, do not accept it in equal measure. While I suppose that is in the nature of democracy, sometimes it is rather difficult to swallow, especially in the case of a soul as sensitive as myself.

We know the Deputy does the same.

Nonetheless, I thank all those who contributed to the Bill's successful passage. Over the past two and a half years I have gained a considerable amount of experience of the difficulties involved in drafting legislation, especially when one is obliged to do so to give a lead.

We have done a very good day's work on this Bill and I predict its provisions will be effective and of considerable importance in the future.

I regret that the Minister did not accept minimum sentences in relation to very serious offences for which we were suggesting sanctions but, generally, I cannot complain, especially in relation to those parts which had been incorporated in my earlier one.

I welcome the passage of this Bill, as I was unavoidably absent when it was debated on Second Stage.

It represents a welcome reform of the Offences Against the Person Act, described in 1883 as extremely clumsy; in 1991, it was deplored that so much of it remained in being. Indeed one of its deficiencies was its failure to address modern-type crimes such as those perpetrated through syringe attacks. It is indeed a welcome addition to our criminal law as the recent threat of infectious diseases transmitted by syringe attacks was a potent weapon in criminals' armoury. I am indeed glad we have moved to close that loophole in the law.

In particular I welcome the new offence of harassment in section 10, with its emphasis on serious interference with privacy which I am sure will be welcomed, by women in particular.

I congratulate the Minister and her officials on its successful passage.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share