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

BB00300

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


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

00F974C746E9B6C880258695005E4DF1

LastModifiedSnippet

LastModifiedSnippet

03/18/2021 03:01:14 PM

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

Snippet Contents:

I also support Deputy Pringle's amendment. What the Minister is saying is that this is a timing issue and three years is too long to wait. The argument has been well made that three years is probably the appropriate time to allow legislation of this nature to be enacted and work in practice for some time before assessing the workings of preliminary hearings.
A reassessment of what has been achieved by legislation of this nature would address issues similar to that raised in our amendment, for example, the practice of examining the previous sexual conduct of victims. Another issue, which was brought up earlier, concerns the counselling notes of a victim of sexual abuse. I refer to a situation where a person who has gone through a very traumatic experience has gone to a counsellor and the notes then become evidence which the defence can seek to see during the trial. I refer to whether that is appropriate and the issues in that regard.
Many of us will be aware that, as politicians, we often play the role of counsellors as well. We speak to people in a private capacity and assure them that conversations are very much within the four walls. In a formal counselling setting, that would certainly always be stressed. Yet, here we have in legislation a situation where counselling notes can be used in a trial. There are issues around all of that which means that an adequate review of the legislation in an appropriate time will be necessary. Deputy Pringle is correct that three years would be adequate to gather enough knowledge from practitioners in law firms and jurors to decide whether the legislation is working or what are its failings. We could consider what representations we might get from victims, many of whom feel left out of the process.
The suggestion that a year would be adequate does not stand up because few, if any, preliminary hearings will be up and running within a year to allow us to make a proper assessment. The three-year period is appropriate, and I suggest that under these circumstances the Minister reconsider her position and accept the amendment.