Vol. 495 No. 4
30 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to introduce legislation in view of the recent ruling in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the chastisement of children; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18895/98]
The rule of law under which parents are immune from criminal liability in respect of the physical chastisement of their children where such chastisement is moderate and reasonable is kept under review in my Department. The recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A. v. the United Kingdom which found that the UK was in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as it did not provide adequate protection to a child from his stepfather against treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3, is being studied in my Department as part of the ongoing review I have referred to.
In this context it has to be borne in mind that the European Court of Human Rights limited its examination to the specific facts of the case before it. These were that the child had bruising consistent with the use of a garden cane, applied with considerable force, on more than one occasion. The stepfather had been charged before an English court with assault causing actual bodily harm and tried before a jury. The defence contended that the beatings inflicted by the stepfather amounted to reasonable punishment and came within the scope of the aforementioned rule of law. The jury acquitted the stepfather by a majority verdict. It is a matter for conjecture whether a similar finding in similar circumstances would issue from an Irish court.
I might add that in line with a 1994 recommendation of the Law Reform Commission the rule of law under which teachers were immune from criminal liability in respect of physical chastisement of pupils was removed in the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997.
