Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 20, subsection (5), lines 21 and 22, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following new paragraphs:
" (a) while engaged in ornithology wilfully to disturb a protected wild bird, or
(b) while so engaged or engaged in agriculture, fishing or forestry unintentionally to injure or kill a protected wild bird, or ".
I propose to take amendment Nos. 6 and 7 together as they are directly related. Section 22 establishes the category of protected wild birds, namely, all wild birds other than those appearing in the Third Schedule.
Section 22 (4) provides that, subject to certain exceptions listed in subsection (5), it will be an offence to hunt protected wild birds except under licence or special permission under subsection (4) (a) to injure them wilfully, take or interfere with their nests or eggs, or disturb them on or near their nests.
The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to except from the prohibition in subsection (4) (a) the wilful disturbance or unintentional injuring or killing of a protected wild bird in the course of ornithology. A case in point would be the flushing of protected birds in order to facilitate an accurate census of their numbers in a particular area.
The provision in amendment No. 7 is a consequential safeguard against any abuse of this new exception for ornithologists. It will be a simple matter for an ornithologist to establish his identity and bona fides, if and when he is challenged and in that event, obviously the question of a prosecution would not arise.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 21, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following new sub-section:
" (7) In any proceedings for an offence under this section in which it is alleged that the defendant wilfully disturbed a protected wild bird described in subsection (4) (e) of this section, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that at the time of the alleged offence the defendant was not engaged in ornithology."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 21, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following new sub-section:
"(8) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken in any District Court District, and in case such proceedings are taken and apart from this section the Justice before whom the proceedings are brought would not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings, then for the purpose of conferring such jurisdiction the offence may be treated as having been committed within the District Court District to which such Justice is assigned."
Section 22, as I have already said in relation to a previous amendment, makes it an offence to hunt protected wild birds otherwise than under a licence or permission granted by the Minister under the Bill.
Section 23 treats similarly of the protected wild animals listed in the Fifth Schedule. A difficulty arises where there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution for a hunting offence under these two sections, but it is not possible to establish, with certainty, the exact place where the offence is alleged to have been committed nor, consequently, the appropriate District Court district for jurisdiction purposes.
Under the District Court Rules the jurisdiction of a district justice, in cases of summary jurisdiction in respect of an offence, can be exercised by him;
in the court area wherein the offence is stated to have been committed, or in the court area wherein the accused has been arrested, or in the court area wherein the accused resides.
There are no powers of arrest under the Bill and therefore, in cases where the exact location of an alleged offence cannot be established, the prosecution would have to be taken in the court area wherein the accused person resides.
This could prove very inconvenient for witnesses in a situation where the alleged offence was committed in an area far removed from the place of residence of the accused. The effect of these amendments will be that proceedings for a hunting offence under sections 22 or 23 of the Bill may be taken in any District Court area.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring it within the jurisdiction of the district justice.
This amendment was sought by some of the voluntary organisations concerned with preservation and orderly hunting of fowl. I want to explain to the committee exactly what it means. It means that a prosecution under those sections may be brought in any District Court area in the country. Normally it will only be taken where the offence was committed or where the defendant resided for the purposes of this Bill.
In relation to what the Minister mentioned earlier about the ornithologist and the situation provided for here, is he happy that the general terms of those sections can be administered and that the culprits can be brought to justice? We must be concerned about making provision for everything that may occur and tightening things up. Is the Minister happy that he will be able to bring all the other more obvious culprits to justice in respect of what is provided for here?
That will be a matter of getting evidence. We are dealing with amendments here, and I suggest if we are not to get confused it would be better to stick to the amendments.
With all due respect, we are dealing with what shall and what shall not be an offence and who shall be guilty of an offence.
No. With respect, we are dealing with two amendments.
We are dealing with proceedings which have been taken. It is a territorial difficulty that has arisen previously in District Court proceedings. It is very necessary to have something like this.
I am familiar with the situation and with the case made in the other House and elsewhere regarding the position which obtained to date where you could have a situation where somebody could be guilty of an offence in one District Court area and because of the peculiarities attaching to that——
I think we should fix the next meeting.
Before the time is up I would like to fix the time for the next meeting.
I would like another meeting this week if it is convenient.
The Minister better ask the ranks of Tuscany if they will be available. We are quite prepared if it can be fitted in.
Thursday morning is out because the room is taken by Public Accounts.
I find if I am to give an afternoon to one committee and a forenoon to another one it is as much as I can give. However unfortunate that may be for the purposes of this legislation we all have to operate as Deputies. If we give one day in the week to a committee we are not doing too badly.
What about tomorrow morning?
I suggest tomorrow afternoon.
There is an EEC sub-committee tomorrow.
Perhaps it could be held in Room 114?
I have many qualities but the gift of ubiquity is not one.
I should like to make some progress on this Bill. I do not want to be unreasonable but this is only the third meeting. We had only one meeting last week. We had no more than a gentleman's agreement that we would make an effort to have two meetings this week.
At that stage I was not aware that there would be a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on Thursday morning.
What about tomorrow afternoon?
From 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
I am in some difficulty regarding this matter. Perhaps we might meet at 5 p.m. but I would not like to say I would be free from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
I will be available tomorrow at 4 p.m., 5 p.m. or 6 p.m.
Is the committee agreeable to sit from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.?
Would it not be possible for the committee to meet at 5 p.m. and hope that we get through something in one hour?
We could rise and sit again.
With all respect it is hardly worth meeting for less than two hours.
I think the committee is agreed that we sit from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on tomorrow, 23rd June, 1976.
The Committee adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 23rd June, 1976.