Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Feb 1994

Vol. 139 No. 6

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 14:
In page 6, between lines 11 and 12, to insert following new section:
9.—(1) Any person who shall in any unlawful manner wilfully prevent or interrupt the free passage of any person or vehicle in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the exercise of the legitimate rights of citizens to picket, protest, or assemble in a peaceful manner.".
—(Senator Enright.)

In view of the fact that we had an extensive discussion on this amendment, I ask Senator Enright if the amendment is being pressed?

We had a detailed discussion on this amendment. I am concerned about this matter as I want to safeguard the legitimate rights of citizens to picket, protest or assemble in a peaceful manner. It is important that this section be added to the Bill and I ask the House to insert the amendment.

Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 28.

  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Henry, Mary.
  • Honan, Cathy.
  • McDonagh, Jarlath.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Neville, Daniel.
  • O'Toole, Joe.
  • Quinn, Feargal.

Níl

  • Bohan, Eddie.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Calnan, Michael.
  • Cashin, Bill.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Crowley, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Tom.
  • Gallagher, Ann.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Mary.
  • Kiely, Dan.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Mick.
  • McGennis, Marian.
  • Magner, Pat.
  • Maloney, Sean.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • O'Brien, Francis.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Townsend, Jim.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Neville; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Magner.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, line 20, to delete "twelve months" and substitute "three months".

The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the penalty for common assault in the District Court from 12 months to three months. A common assault may be a gesture, a slap or punch, or any action which results in actual bodily harm. An assault which occasions actual bodily harm may consist of an action resulting in a bruise, a cut, an abrasion or something of that kind. By definition it is a minor matter. An assault which does not inflict any bodily harm does not merit sending someone to prison for six to 12 months. We consider it to be a minor offence because it is dealt with in the District Court. It could be dealt with in the Circuit Court if a greater penalty is necessary for common assault.

We are looking at this in the context of over-crowded prisons. In most cases it is accepted that when someone is put in prison another prisoner must be released. The substitution of three months for 12 months would be more than adequate when dealing with a minor offence.

In relation to this amendment, the judge may use his discretion to impose a fine of £1,000 or a 12 months prison sentence. However, he cannot impose a fine in excess of £1,000 or a sentence longer than 12 months. Common assault varies and the judge may decide its definition. Three months might be fairer.

I have difficulty with this amendment because the sole purpose of the section is to increase the penalty for common assault. The penalty under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, is six months. In the light of the representations made to me by the prosecution authorities to the effect that the existing penalty is insufficient to deal with the more serious offences under this heading, I propose to increase the sentence to 12 months. I also agree with Senator Enright that the judge has the discretion to either apply the full 12 month period or something less. The amendment would reduce what is in the Bill now to three months. This is in opposition to what I feel and to what has been represented to me as being necessary at this time. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Does the Minister not believe that if a greater penalty was necessary for common assault it could be referred to the Circuit Court once it had been dealt with in the District Court?

If possible the matter should be dealt with in the District Court. People say the District Court is busy and that cases may not get a full hearing. The District Court is a fair court in most cases. I would prefer to see matters dealt with in the District Court because it would be more convenient for local witnesses.

I could not have made the case better than Senator Enright. We must look at the District Court and the purpose it serves. The members of the District Court have done a good job. It is a local court which saves enormous expense and inconvenience to members of the public, whichever side they are on. People can go the District Court in their local area and have their case dealt with there. It is the appropriate court to use and a 12 month sentence is the maximum which can be imposed. We are aware of cases which have been by district judges. I am not prepared to accept the amendment regardless of Senator Honan's pleadings.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following new section:

"11.—Where the court is satisfied that parents of juvenile offenders should be asked to account for their role in controlling their child or children, such parents may be required by the court to give account to the court for their role and the court may, if the court deems fit, direct such parents to be at home or such place of domestic residence as the court directs with their child or children at such times or part of such times and in such circumstances as the court directs the child or children to be at home or such other place of domestic residence as the court directs.".

Over the last number of years problems have arisen concerning juvenile offenders whose parents, regrettably, have separated. In addition, some juvenile offenders come from single parent families and homes where there are many problems. There is nobody to take control of children and parents should have direct responsibility. While the situation varies, judges occasionally try to make parents responsible for a juvenile convicted of a crime and there should be a provision in this section to give a judge power to use his discretion in making parents or guardians responsible for the actions of their children.

People may say it is impossible for parents to be responsible for their children when they are out at night. Everybody should be aware of the fact, however, that if young people are committing offences there is a responsibility on the parent or guardian to know where they are. This would give the courts an opportunity to make parents responsible for the actions of their children. It would also make certain that in future a judge could impose a sentence while making it clear to parents that they will have to be responsible for their children. It is a type of probation which could be of help.

I have some concerns about this amendment. First, what is the definition of a juvenile offender? Is it somebody under 14, 16 or 18? By not including an age it is open to interpretation. Second, even though we all know parents have a duty and responsibility for their children, is that duty endless in all circumstances? Do you force parents to place the child under house arrest? That would take responsibility from the legal authorities whose duty it is to prosecute crimes and mete the punishment required. I understand what Senator Enright is trying to achieve but the biggest problem with juvenile crime is drug abuse of some form or another. When it gets to that level parents have no control over it. What is needed is rehabilitation in a totally different environment from that of a prison. This amendment will not achieve what it seeks.

I have great sympathy for what Senator Enright is trying to achieve in this amendment but I have a number of difficulties with it. The amendment does not have a penalty provision so, if it were to be accepted and inserted in the Bill, what would happen if the parents chose to ignore it? Second, a curfew is suggested but who would enforce it? Third, are we not entering dangerous territory if we make people who have not committed an offence responsible unless we intend to manufacture an offence of not controlling one's children? Those are the problems I would have to overcome if I accepted the amendment. I am against inserting a provision in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993, which deals with parental responsibility because a comprehensive juvenile justice Bill with over 150 sections is currently being drafted by the Department of Justice. We are working in close co-operation with the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, and her officials because obviously the Department of Education has a central role to play in any decisions the Government makes in relation to juvenile justice.

There are huge constitutional issues involved and it is a very emotive issue. We are dealing with a number of sets of parents, first those who are good and loving and give everything to their children. They are there all the time encouraging them but, despite all their efforts, one child goes wrong. I do not think you can blame those parents for something that happens to their children which is very much outside their control.

Second, there are parents with poor parenting skills, perhaps because of the lack of social support in their community. We are taught to be all types of things but we are not taught to be parents, something often learned by trial and error. We are not trying to deal with that type of parent in the Bill because we need to give them the support and help they need. That is where a number of other agencies come into play.

Third, there is a core of parents that are really the subject of Senator Enright's comments; they know their children are involved in crime yet do not control them or make any effort to find out where they are. Even worse, they actively encourage their children to engage in crime, using them, for instance, as look-outs or couriers if they are involved in abuse of drugs. It is a huge area. A couple of months ago I attended a seminar on this issue with social workers, child psychologists, health board officials, teachers and other educationalists. They were of the opinion that legislation must be comprehensive as well as taking into account the fact that other agencies are involved apart from the agencies of the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána.

We must take care to ensure that whatever legislation emerges will withstand any constitutional challenge and will be implementable. That is what I am actively pursuing and I have been working hard with the Minister for Education on this. Most people agree that a Bill with over 150 sections is comprehensive legislation and not something we can treat lightly. In light of the fact that it is being pushed strongly, that it is a priority in my Department and will be coming forward this year, I do not want to preempt it in any way by inserting a section in this Bill which does not look at all the areas and issues involved in parental responsibility.

I welcome the Minister's comments on a juvenile justice Bill and the fact that she is working in close co-operation with the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach. Such a Bill is necessary and I agree with the Minister's analysis of the various types of parents. We should support parents with poor parenting skills. The Minister also spoke about parents who accept their responsibilities and seem to be doing everything they should, yet have problem children.

Recently, I spoke to the Garda in my area about the case of a juvenile who admitted committing a number of robberies and was questioned. At the end of the questioning session the boy's father was asked if he had anything to say, his only comment was that the child should not have admitted the robberies. The Garda said there was no point in bringing the child to court because they did not feel any punishment would be meted out. Obviously, having a parent with that attitude, the child would continue to commit crimes. The mother in the case was very concerned but terrified of the father so she needed support and help because if anybody would do something about it she would. I am glad that the Minister, in bringing forward this comprehensive legislation with 150 sections, will try to deal with this type of thing.

Parents must accept responsibility for their children. We should try to help people who do not accept it and teach them parenting skills. We must let it be known that it is not acceptable for parents to believe that they have no responsibility for their children's actions.

I listened attentively to the Minister's remarks. I also listened with interest to Senator Crowley. I wish to point out to him that when referring to parents of juvenile offenders I mean juveniles who have been convicted of a crime and on whom the court is about to impose sentence. They are convicted and are thus offenders.

I asked about age.

I am referring to young people from about 13 years of age. In this amendment I am seeking that such parents should be asked to account, that they "may" be required to do so. I am not asking that they "should" or "shall" be required but that they "may" be required by the court to give account to the court for their role.

The Minister is aware that there is no method whereby a judge can compel parents to keep an eye on their children. In many instances when the judge gives the offender probation or adjourns the case for six or 12 months the child continues to commit crimes. That is a tragedy. If a judge is interested in the cases that come before him or her, he or she may take time with such cases and put the offenders on probation. I have seen young offenders, particularly boys, who, when a judge establishes good communication with them, stay away from crime with the proper probation service. It is hard to see that happening in Dublin where there are so many cases before the court that a judge does not have the time for such an approach. In rural areas, however, young offenders can benefit when judges take an interest and are anxious to see them being rehabilitated.

I believe it was Spencer Tracy who, in the film "Boys' Town", said there is no such thing as a bad boy. That should probably be "a bad person" in the new vernacular. There are many areas where a judge can oversee the comings and goings of young people on probation. I have seen instances where judges, without the benefit of this legislation, have instructed parents to supervise their children with regard to what time they must be home each day and so forth.

No penalties are imposed in this amendment. It seeks to give the court some authority over parents who are careless and pay no attention to the conduct of their children. The wording is "may" not "shall" so that the court is afforded the opportunity to put a juvenile on probation and, in the course of that probation, it can adjourn the case indefinitely on foot of reports and before a final sentence is imposed.

The Minister has given a lengthy reply. Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 11.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, subsection (1), between the lines 27 and 28, to insert the following paragraph:

"(c) to enter any train, bus, taxi, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward,".

We discussed this earlier in the context of another section. There are problems with people who enter and cause trouble in buses and taxis. That should be an offence.

It might be helpful if I explain the background to section 11 and section 13 which is related to it. In section 11 it is a key consideration that the person must enter or intend to enter as a trespasser. Under the amendment trains, buses and so forth would be included. These are vehicles to which members of the public have access and the question of entering as a trespasser would not arise.

Where somebody has entered a building as a trespasser — in other words the person is somewhere he or she should not be — it is easy to imagine circumstances where a reasonable inference can be drawn that the trespass was with intent to commit an offence. However, where a person enters, for example, a bus to which members of the public generally have access, how in practical terms could it be proved that this was with intent to commit an offence unless an offence was committed or attempted? In either case existing law in relation to the offence would cover the situation. One possibility might be if somebody entered a bus in possession of an offensive weapon with intent to assault the driver. Again it is hard to see how that could be proved unless there was an assault or an attempted assault. In any event, the law already prescribes penalties for possession of unlawful and offensive weapons.

I do not believe that the proposed amendment would be workable and accordingly, I cannot accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.

There is a printing error in the last line of subsection (3) (a) in Government amendment No. 18. It should read "or to both." rather than "of to both."

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 18:
In page 7, lines 3 to 5, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) (a) Where a member of the Garda Síochána finds a person in a place to which subsection (1) relates and suspects, with reasonable cause, that such person is or has been acting in a manner contrary to the provisions of that subsection, then the member may direct the person so suspected to do either or both of the following, that is to say:
(i) desist from acting in such a manner, and
(ii) leave immediately the vicinity of the place concerned in a peaceable or orderly manner.
(b) It shall be an offence for any person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to fail to comply with a direction given by a member of the Garda Síochána under this section.
(3) (a) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months of to both.
(b) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.".

In our discussions on Report Stage in the Dáil the view was expressed that the definition of a public place was too narrow in the sense that it might not cover, for example, people entering a derelict building and behaving in a manner which causes difficulties for nearby residents. I undertook to look again at the definition of public place in that context.

We had lengthy discussions with the draftsman but we keep encountering the difficulty that any attempt to widen the definition further would carry a danger that it would cover too wide a range and that virtually everywhere would become a public place. However, the difficulty with derelict buildings referred to in the Dáil should be met to a considerable extent by section 13 and this amendment to it. Under section 13 it will be an offence for a person to trespass on any building or its surroundings in such a manner that causes or is likely to cause fear in others.

The purpose of amendment No. 18 is to give the Garda similar powers to those available in section 8 where they suspect a person is behaving contrary to section 13. Where, for example, a gang of youths is congregated in a derelict building in a manner that caused fear in local residents the gardaí would have the power to direct the gang to leave and it would be an offence to refuse to comply with that direction. In many cases this would be a practical approach to the problem and I hope the amendment is acceptable to the House.

Amendment No. 19 is one of a series of amendments which the Progressive Democrats have proposed seeking to reduce the penalties for particular offences under the Bill. This is against the general trend in the Dáil and similar amendments there did not meet with much success. It is not unreasonable, particularly where an offender has a history of this type of offence, for the courts to be in a position to impose a maximum penalty of 12 months. In the circumstances, I am not disposed to accept amendment No. 19.

This amendment is strong stuff. It states: "Where a member of the Garda Síochána finds a person in a place to which subsection (1) relates and suspects, with reasonable cause..." and it continues "leave immediately the vicinity of the place concerned in a peaceable or orderly manner." For what period of time has the person to leave the area? A group of young people may be acting in a particular manner but it is not specified how long they have to leave. They must "leave immediately the vicinity of the place concerned." I see the point the Minister makes when a group of youths is causing problems and I accept that should not be allowed.

The Minister referred last week to the case of a group of youths sitting on a wall annoying elderly people and I accept that such conduct should, not be tolerated. People conducting themselves in that manner should be chastised and, if necessary, prosecuted. This section requires people to "leave immediately the vicinity of the place concerned in a peaceable or orderly manner." We have no problems with order in the State. There is common sense in regard to law enforcement but in the long term I would be concerned that such powers could be abused in the future as no time limit is imposed.

Is the amendment agreed?

No. It is not agreed because there is no reference to the length of time.

Amendment put and declared carried.

As amendment No. 18 is agreed amendment No. 19 cannot be moved for the reason that the words no longer exist in the Bill.

Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Is the Minister satisfied with the wording in the section: "twelve or more persons...use or threaten to use unlawful violence...." I agree with that point but what concerns me is where it states "...will cause to a person of reasonable firmness present at that place...." The failure to be a little more precise concerns me. The Minister is aware of different people's viewpoints and some people would react to a minor, trivial matter by feeling that they are being threatened which might not be the case. If a group of 12 or more people were going home together after a football match and making noise, somebody might ring the Garda and tell them they were afraid of a riot. What checks and safety measures are there in such an instance? People can get excited and upset over trivial matters and I would not like somebody to be convicted on that basis.

In regard to riot, unlawful violence has to be used and that would take care of the Senator's problem. We talked about this issue in the other House and my officials discussed it with the Attorney General's Office and the parliamentary draftsman to see if we could use a different formula. However, this is the best formula available. I know what Senator Enright is getting at and we discussed the same point regarding noise levels. Different people have different tastes and some people have a greater tolerance than others in regard to noise and disturbance. We do not want cranks ringing the Garda on every flimsy excuse to call them out.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

With regard to the question of affray the section states: "two or more persons...use or threaten to use violence...". It is serious when two people can be charged with an offence of threatening to use violence and can be punished on conviction by the imposition of a fine not exceeding £500 or a term of imprisonment. I am concerned about the wording "use or threaten to use" and that they can be fined or given 12 months' imprisonment or, on conviction on indictment, five years' imprisonment. A term of five years is a serious punishment for threatening to use violence. The scope with regard to affray is too broad in section 16.

In this section we are restating what is already there and not creating anything new. At present, under common law, an affray is a mis-demeanour and consists of fighting or other acts of violence between two or more persons in a public place which is of such a nature as might frighten reasonable people. Ultimately, as we know, these provisions will be decided in a court of law and it will be up to the court to decide whether there was an offence. There are safeguards in the Bill, we have had a lot of discussion in the Dáil and in this House and we have tightened up the areas where people had concerns. I appreciate that Senator Enright has concerns in relation to this but we are not doing anything new.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, subsection (2) (a), lines 6 and 7, to delete subparagraph (ii).

This is one of the amendments that I will not put to a vote but I will be calling a vote on Report Stage. However, I put it to the Minister now for consideration. This section deals with blackmail, extortion and demanding money with menaces. Section 17 (1) states: "It shall be an offence for any person who, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, makes any unwarranted demand with menaces." I agree with that. Section 17 (2) states:

For the purposes of this section—

(a) a demand with menaces shall be unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief——

(i) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand, and

(ii) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

There is a great threat in this section with the use of the words "the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand." If somebody owes money I agree they can be brought to court, prosecuted and may be liable for costs. I agree that if the debt is not paid a judgment will be obtained. I agree with the names being published in Stubb's Gazette and that judgments may be recorded against debtors and charges registered on their property. I also agree with the State giving a sheriff power to seize goods.

This section implies that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. There is a problem in Dublin with regard to moneylending where people use threats of violence to collect debts owed to them. Could a moneylender use threats to reinforce his demand to collect a debt? Allowing menaces as a proper means for reinforcing a debt due is a matter of great concern. Often property has been damaged and destroyed by people collecting debts. That is wrong. There are methods of debt collection which have become established in Ireland. In former days debts were collected forcibly and unlawful means were used to collect them. This section poses a real danger and causes great concern.

An amendment with similar wording to this was discussed in the Dáil and in the Select Committee. I have had a lengthy opportunity to examine it, from Select Committee to Report Stage in the Dáil until now. While I accept that in the everyday use of language the wording of section 17 (2) (a) (ii) may appear strange, I am advised there are sound legal reasons for the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. For example, the use of a solicitor's letter threatening legal action could be regarded as the use of menaces to reinforce a demand for payment of a debt. Where a debt was legitimately owed this would obviously be a proper procedure to follow. However, if this paragraph was deleted there would not be a defence available to someone who sends such a letter in good faith.

As I said, I have had a long time to consider this matter. There is no point in Senator Enright holding out for a change on Report Stage because I have had ample opportunity to consider the amendment and the section. I will not accept the amendment and I can see no possibility of changing my mind between now and Report Stage.

Some years ago "Today Tonight" presented a programme on the powers of the Revenue. One of the last items left in a house visited by the sheriff was a bottle of stout, which was broken by those seizing the goods. The sheriff had seized all the family's goods and damaged much of their property. This section as it stands gives carte blanche to someone using physical force to collect debts. No one should be able to physically threaten anyone else. The use of menaces goes beyond the use of force in intimidating another.

The Minister of State for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy O'Rourke, is introducing legislation to protect people from moneylenders, their power and conduct. Other legislation is also being introduced. The Minister will have seen where big corporations would almost go so far as to use a battering ram to collect debts. That is not right and is intolerable in a democratic society. The Minister said a solicitor's letter might be called a menace. Such letters no longer carry much threat.

Some solicitor's letters do.

It depends how they are written.

They are like Galway hurlers; they are tougher in the west.

We are more law-abiding.

There is a danger there. I am not getting my point across as well as I would have hoped. No one should be entitled to use menaces to reinforce a demand for a debt due. There are proper, normal legal channels available. One can be committed to prison for failure to pay a debt. We will not change that this morning but we have a duty to ensure no one can use menaces, meaning a physical threat to another person. That will be copperfastened by this legislation, although the Minister does not intend that.

After this Bill is passed there may be a menacing, physical threat to someone of advanced years with high blood pressure. That person may get a heart attack which brings on death. Those are the circumstances that concern me. No one should be able to reinforce demands with menaces. Other sections of this Bill seek to protect law-abiding citizens at home. Thousands of such citizens are in debt and their number is rising. They should not live with the fear that someone could use menaces to reinforce a demand for collection of that debt.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 9, subsection (3), lines 13 to 15 to delete subparagraph (a).

Section 17 deals with blackmail, extortion and demanding money with menaces. Subparagraph (a) provides for penalties on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. The offence involved is not minor and as such it should not be dealt with in the District Court. The proper place for this offence is the Circuit Court and therefore I propose the deletion of this subparagraph.

This amendment is also similar to one in the other House, which was spoken to by Deputy O'Malley. I accept that the vast majority, if not all, of those cases likely to arise under this heading will be tried on indictment. Nevertheless one could not rule out the possibility that in rare cases such offences would properly be within the scope of the District Court and could be tried summarily. Even where a decision is taken to prosecute summarily it would be open to the District Court to refuse jurisdiction if it felt the offence was of such gravity that it was not within its jurisdiction. In those circumstances I regret I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 17 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following new section:

18. (1) It shall be an offence for any person to have in his possession or under his control any thing or recorded information, in circumstances which give rise to the reasonable inference, that such possession or control was for the purpose of the commission of a serious offence.

(2) In this section, "serious offence" means any offence which is punishable on indictment by a term of five years imprisonment or any greater punishment.

(3) In a prosecution for an offence under this section, it shall not be necessary for the complaint, charge or verdict to specify any serious offence, where the court or jury trying the offence is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the possession or control was for the purpose of committing any one or more of a number of serious offences.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a term of 3 years imprisonment or a fine of £50,000, or both.

At present, if somebody is found, for instance, with documents noting the daily routes of the Taoiseach or the Minister, or with a plan of their house or apartment, he or she cannot be charged with anything unless it can be shown that they were conspiring with somebody else, or if it can be shown what exactly they intended to do with the documentation. If somebody is found with a map of one's house or if they have drawings of the various rooms or circuits of one's alarm system, the Garda cannot do anything about it unless it can be shown that the person was conspiring with somebody else, or it can be shown exactly what they intended to do. If this section was inserted, it would enable the Garda to nip many things in the bud because they would not have to wait for something to happen before somebody could be charged. There is precedent for the term "...in circumstances which give rise to the reasonable inference...", under the Firearms Act and in other statutes.

I have much sympathy with the amendment. I am sure Senator Honan appreciates that the issues raised by the amendment, impinging as they do on the law generally in relation to attempt, conspiracy, etc., are extremely complex. I am reluctant to proceed with an amendment along the proposed lines without having had the benefit of a detailed review of issues in this area generally. As I indicated in the other House, I am undertaking such a review in the context of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which is being prepared in my Department at present. As part of that review, I assure the Senator I have directed that an assessment be undertaken with the Garda Síochána regarding any deficiencies in the existing law in this area which may be hampering the fight against crime. I am confident that in the proposed Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill we will be able to meet the type of concerns expressed by Senator Honan. I hope she will understand that although I am not in a position to accept the amendment today, in the absence of having completed the detailed review to which I referred, it does not mean that I am in anyway unsympathetic to her point.

I welcome the Minister's comments in that she accepts that the present law on conspiracy is inadequate. In view of the fact that the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which is being prepared will examine any deficiencies that the Garda find in relation to this matter, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

I go along with the general thrust of what the Minister is doing in this section. The part which deals with the obstruction or assault of a peace officer in the execution of their duties is fine. However, the Minister is extensively extending it in that "peace officer" means a member of the Garda Síochána, a prison officer or a member of the Defence Forces. I understand that situations may arise where such a provision would be necessary. However, we are in peace time and the Army is used to back up the civilian force. The existence of such a provision in peace time is giving the Army a new role. I would like to know how the Minister sees this in practice. Is a member of the Army now to be given further powers? I am interested in the Minister's comments because we have an excellent Garda force in this country and the Army is only used for support when it is called upon to assist. This provision may be a wide extension of the Army's powers and I am concerned about that. Are we talking about a situation where money is delivered to a bank and the Garda and Army are there? Is it still the case that the Garda Síochána must direct the Army to get involved? What is the position? It would be different if there was civil strife but in peace time this extension concerns me. What role for the Army does the Minister envisage?

First, this section does not confer any additional powers on anybody. We are not saying that the role of the Defence Forces will be changed: we are reinforcing the fact that their role is always in support of the civil power. We are providing additional protections. For example, if a member of the Defence Forces and a member of the Garda Síochána, in whatever circumstances, are involved in defusing a riot or whatever and both are assaulted, I do not think there would be any case for saying that the garda should have additional protection to the member of the Defence Forces because the member of the Defence Forces was only there at the request of the Garda. It is only providing additional protection and is not giving any additional powers to anybody.

Second, when the Bill was originally introduced in the other House, I had included traffic wardens as peace officers. I received strong representations from all sides, including my own side, that they should not be included, for one reason or other, as peace officers. I received equally strong representations, particularly from the Senator's party, in relation to including fisheries officers. At that time, the Senator will recall, there were a number of fairly high profile incidents in the midlands, in the Senator's area, where fisheries officers had been assaulted. I also received representations that officers of the Revenue Commissioners and customs officers should be included. I took the view that I would reduce rather than expand what was already in the provision. Therefore, we are left with the Garda Síochána, prison officers and a member of the Defence Forces. I honestly believe that the member of the Defence Forces, in support of the civil power, is entitled to the same protection as a member of the Garda if they are assaulted at the same time.

Do I understand that the peace officer will be required to be in uniform? The Army are called in to aid the civil force and I accept that fully. They are always in uniform but does it apply to somebody who is not in uniform? Regarding prison officers, I understand that an offence could be committed against an officer in a prison or even within the immediate vicinity of the prison. If a prison officer is assaulted, the officer must have a right to protect himself and the law would be available to do that. How far does it extend with regard to members of the prison service and members of the Army who are in civilian clothes?

As the Senator agreed, members of the Defence Forces would always be in uniform. Therefore, we are talking primarily about gardaí. It would be grossly unfair to make a distinction between the duties of the various gardaí — for instance, detectives, who do not wear uniform — and members of the special police squads, who are dealing effectively with matters in the Senator's own area at present.

It would be unacceptable to have a situation where the man or woman in uniform would have greater protection than the person in plain clothes doing an equally and sometimes more dangerous job. Equally, prison officers do not confine themselves to the prison or the immediate surrounds of the prison. For example, prison officers travel and to and from our courts almost every day of the week with prisoners and they also accompany prisoners who are being transferred from one custodial place to another. This would have to be taken into account; one could not simply confine it to the confines or the immediate surrounds of the prisons themselves.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Question: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Sitting suspended at 12.5 p.m. and resumed at 12.15 p.m.
Top
Share