Snippet data - viewing only, no editing possible


Label

Field name

Field value


Sitting_Date

03/11/2021 12:00:00 AM


Sitting_Forum


Snippet Ref No

SnippetRefNo

W02000

Selected Quill

SnippetType

1

Saved Quill

SnippetType_C4D


Selected Quill

SnippetType_1

1

Speaker Name

IndxSpeakerName

Kenny, Martin

Business Category

IndxMainHeadCat

Bills

Sub Category

IndxSubTopic

Criminal Procedure Bill 2021

Topic

IndxQHeadTopic

Report and Final Stages

See Also

SeeAlso


Part1

TitlePart1


Part2

TitlePart2


Part3

TitlePart3


Volume

VolumeNo

1005

Book No

BookNo

2

Pdf Ref

PdfPageRef


Default Business Index

IndexViewCategoryDefault


3 Part Title Business Index

IndexViewCategoryTitle


Default Topic Index

IndexViewCategoryDefaultSpeaker

Criminal Procedure Bill 2021\Report and Final Stages
Bills\Criminal Procedure Bill 2021\Report and Final Stages

3 Part Topic Index

IndexViewCategoryTitleSpeaker


Motion Code

MotionCode


Motion Title

MotionTitle


Stage

MotionStage


Amendment No

MotionAmendmentNo

1

Bill Code

BillCode

B4a

Bill Title

BillTitle

Criminal Procedure Bill 2021

Stage

BillStage

Report and Final Stages

Section

BillSection


Statement Code

StatementCode


Statement Title

StatementTitle


Stage

StatementStage


Hour Indicator

HourIndicator

Not applicable

Procedural Instruction

Procedural_Instruction

No

Debate Adjourned

DebateAdjourned

No

Question Askee

QAskee


Question Asker

QAsker


Question Department

QDept


Question ID

QID


Question Reference

QRef


Question Speaker PID

QSpeakerPID


Question Speaker PID To

QSpeakerPIDTo


Questions Asked

QUESTIONSASKED


Speaker Type

SpeakerType

1

Speaker Name

Senator


Deputy


Minister


Witness


Chairman


ViceChairman


ActingChairmanD


ActingChairmanS


Speaker4Display

Speaker4Display

Deputy Martin Kenny

Speaker

Speaker

Deputy Martin Kenny

SpeakerPID

SpeakerPID

MartinKenny

SpeakerText

SpeakerText

Martin Kenny

OriginalUnidSnippet

OriginalUnidSnippet

4A9A0AEE758FD87F802586950054A16E

LastModifiedSnippet

LastModifiedSnippet

03/18/2021 03:01:14 PM

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

Snippet Contents:

I move amendment No. 1: I will try to simplify the amendment. Section 6(8)(b)(iv) of the Bill provides that any order made under or pursuant to section 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 must be addressed in the Bill. This issue relates to preliminary hearings. The language in the Bill suggests that, for instance, at a preliminary hearing of a serious sexual crime case a defence team could seek leave to cross-examine the witness or victim, depending on the term one wishes to use, regarding their previous sexual experience. All Members know that in many of these cases there may be issues around consent and so on which can be teased out. That may be appropriate in certain very limited circumstances but under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, the judge is obliged to be very cautious in that regard.
The O'Malley report suggested that one of two models be used in this regard. One of the models involves the intention to make such an application being notified at the pretrial hearing and then heard during the trial. However, the way the Bill is phrased suggests that such applications could be decided and happen at the pretrial hearing. If that were to be the case, one would have a situation whereby the victim in a sexual assault case would be the same as any other witness from the point of view of the law. The prosecution would prosecute the case, the defence team would defend and the victim would simply be a witness in regard to that.
I believe that in order to protect these persons, who in many of these circumstances are very vulnerable, every effort should be made to ensure that they have a voice. The Minister would recognise that one of the flaws in the system is that, too often, victims are simply treated as witness, have no voice or representation and find it very difficult. That is why many of them do not pursue rape or serious sexual assault claims. They feel they are simply lost in the system. Leaving aside the legislation that is before the House, there is more work to be done to consider and deal with that issue. The O'Malley report dealt with it in some detail. That is why Sinn Féin believes we should press the amendment.
Although the amendment does not deal directly with judges' decisions and cannot influence them in that regard, it does put extra emphasis on the particular point that the notification should be given in the pretrial hearing but the actual decision should not be made until the trial, at which stage there is adequate time to deal with the issue and ensure the victims in these cases do not feel subjected to, in effect, a double trial by virtue of being cross-examined at a pretrial hearing and then further cross-examined at the trial itself. That situation has occurred in certain other jurisdictions. We do not want people to be traumatised again in those circumstances and that is why I believe the amendment is needed. I tabled it on Committee Stage but withdrew it with the intention of resubmitting it on Report Stage.
This is an issue that should be addressed. I hope the Minister will accept this small amendment, which adds a particular emphasis in respect of this issue.