Criminal Justice (Hate Crime) Bill 2020

Ten of Swords

This bill has been proposed and is beginning to work it's way through the stages of approval (currently at stage 2 of 11, with the Seanad right now)
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

Am I missing something here or does this whole bill seem odd? Anyone care to offer an interpretation of it (keeping in mind this is at a very early stage in the process)

Section 4
Every person guilty of committing a relevant offence, aggravated by hate crime pursuant to section3(1) shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to the maximum penalty that can be imposed for the commission of said offence

Isn't an offender liable for the maximum penalty upon conviction anyway, and the judge makes their determination based on a number of different factors? Not sure what material difference this section makes to the current system and how a judge would apply a sentence.

Section 3.2
In determining sentence, for a relevant offence, nothing in this Act shall preclude acourt from taking into consideration such other aggravating factors as may be relevant to the commission of a relevant offence, had this Act not been enacted

Regardless of whatever stigma a person may carry with them for having a hate crime conviction is the only tangible difference that a conviction under this act - potential supervision?

Section 5
In determining sentence, for a relevant offence, aggravated by hate crime pursuant to section3(1), a court may impose a sentence that includes supervision (including post-release supervision of an offender) by the Probation and Welfare Service and such sentence may include the offender undergoing a period of counselling to address his or her prejudicial beliefs against a relevant individual

mr.anonymous

"a period of counselling to address his or her prejudicial beliefs against a relevant individual"

I find that quite worrying.


Is there a difference here between hate crime and hate speech?

Tig98

Isn't it kinda odd that there isn't even a loose definition of what constitutes a hate crime / speech?

sydthebeat

Tig98 wrote: »

Isn't it kinda odd that there isn't even a loose definition of what constitutes a hate crime / speech?

Erm... There is???


“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim or any other person, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

LegacyUser

sydthebeat wrote: »

Erm... There is???


“hate crime” includes any offence that is perceived by a victim or any other person, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual based on said individual’s asylum or refugee status, nationality, religion, colour, race, disability, ethnicity (including members of the Traveller and Roma communities), gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex characteristics or actual or perceived age;

Any offence that is perceived to be motivated by hate in the eyes of the victim...so there is no defence against it if the victim believes it to be so.

Ten of Swords

Why would there be no defence against it? Isn't that the purpose of a trial?

Hate crime charges are hardly going to be brought before the court if it's without some foundation, spurious or unlikely to stick

sydthebeat

IrishBlackPuddingfan wrote: »

Any offence that is perceived to be motivated by hate in the eyes of the victim...so there is no defence against it if the victim believes it to be so.

Do you know how the justice system works?

Peregrinus

This is a private member’s bill - a bill drafted and introduced by opposition TDs. It stands no chance of becoming law. In general opposition TDs introduce bills like this, not with any expectation that they will become law, but as a way of raising issues for discussion, and forcing a debate at which the government will have to state a position. What sometimes results is that the government acknowledges that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and undertakes to develop policy and introduce its own bill on the subject, whereupon the private member withdraws their bill.

Because a private member’s bill stands no chance of becoming law, not much attention is paid to the technical detail of the drafting. Plus, opposition parties tend not to spend their parliamentary allowance on paying for professional legal input into bills that are not going to become law, so most of them are drafted by non-lawyers with little or no experience of drafting legislation. The result is that they tend to be poorly-drafted, as this bill is. All of the criticisms that Ten of Swords makes in the OP are valid, and there are other problems in the language of the bill as well.

And this becomes self-fulfilling; one of the reasons why the government won’t accept or support his bill is precisely that it is very badly drafted. But that may not bother the promoters of the bill if what they really seek to do is to start a debate, or influence a continuing debate. about how the criminal justice system should respond to hate crime.

Meesared

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a private member’s bill - a bill drafted and introduced by opposition TDs. It stands no chance of becoming law. In general opposition TDs introduce bills like this, not with any expectation that they will become law, but as a way of raising issues for discussion, and forcing a debate at which the government will have to state a position. What sometimes results is that the government acknowledges that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and undertakes to develop policy and introduce its own bill on the subject, whereupon the private member withdraws their bill.

Because a private member’s bill stands no chance of becoming law, not much attention is paid to the technical detail of the drafting. Plus, opposition parties tend not to spend their parliamentary allowance on paying for professional legal input into bills that are not going to become law, so most of them are drafted by non-lawyers with little or no experience of drafting legislation. The result is that they tend to be poorly-drafted, as this bill is. All of the criticisms that Ten of Swords makes in the OP are valid, and there are other problems in the language of the bill as well.

And this becomes self-fulfilling; one of the reasons why the government won’t accept or support his bill is precisely that it is very badly drafted. But that may not bother the promoters of the bill if what they really seek to do is to start a debate, or influence a continuing debate. about how the criminal justice system should respond to hate crime.

The 3 Senators that introduced it are all FF though?

Peregrinus

Good point. But doesn't change things, though. It's a private member's bill, not a government bill.

Annasopra

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a private member’s bill - a bill drafted and introduced by opposition TDs. It stands no chance of becoming law. In general opposition TDs introduce bills like this, not with any expectation that they will become law, but as a way of raising issues for discussion, and forcing a debate at which the government will have to state a position. What sometimes results is that the government acknowledges that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and undertakes to develop policy and introduce its own bill on the subject, whereupon the private member withdraws their bill.

Because a private member’s bill stands no chance of becoming law, not much attention is paid to the technical detail of the drafting. Plus, opposition parties tend not to spend their parliamentary allowance on paying for professional legal input into bills that are not going to become law, so most of them are drafted by non-lawyers with little or no experience of drafting legislation. The result is that they tend to be poorly-drafted, as this bill is. All of the criticisms that Ten of Swords makes in the OP are valid, and there are other problems in the language of the bill as well.

And this becomes self-fulfilling; one of the reasons why the government won’t accept or support his bill is precisely that it is very badly drafted. But that may not bother the promoters of the bill if what they really seek to do is to start a debate, or influence a continuing debate. about how the criminal justice system should respond to hate crime.

Yes I think that is the point: encourage the government to move forward on its own proposals

Programme for government wrote:

Hate Crimes

Hate speech and hate crimes have a particularly life long impact on individuals and communities and have no place in our society. We will:

Introduce Hate Crime legislation within twelve months of the formation of the Government. This legislation will create specific offences to ensure that those who target victims because of their association with a particular identity characteristic are identified as perpetrators of hate crime. This legislation will be on the basis of an aggravated offences model. This legislation will be supported by training across the criminal justice system, as well as victim supports.

In order to ensure that those who seek to encourage and incite others to hate minority groups can be prosecuted we will revise and update Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, taking account of the public consultation conducted in 2019.