Jim O'Callaghan proposes ICC updates and conviction disregard

And I move that Standing Order 194 is modified in accordance with Standing Order 241, subsection 2, to provide that it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2026 may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments that it has the power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing subject matter of the Bill in order to a, make amendments to the International Criminal Court Act 2006 in order to give effect to the ratification by the State of the 2010, 2017 and 2019 amendments to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which extends the specific acts that may constitute war crimes to include intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in a non-international armed conflict and the use of certain weapons. And also to clarify the legal obligations of Ireland to cooperate with the International Criminal Court with respect to requests concerning all offences under the Court's jurisdiction and further to enable the Government by order to designate any future amendments or additions to the crimes contained in the Rome Statute as crimes in respect of which Ireland can provide cooperation to the Court. And also to provide for an application-based scheme to enable the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations relating to consensual homosexual activity. And to change the title of the Bill and make other consequential amendments required to take account of the changes above. Can I just say in my opening remarks at committee stage on this Bill, I indicated my intention to bring these amendments at report stage. I'll firstly speak on the proposed amendments to the International Criminal Court Act. These amendments give effect to Ireland's intended ratification of the amendments to Article 8 of the Rome Statute and also ensure that there is an unambiguous basis for Ireland's full cooperation with the ICC in respect of all crimes within the Court's jurisdiction, including those that are not offences in Irish law. The amendments have three objectives to ensure that the definition of war crime in the 2006 Act is aligned with Ireland's proposed ratification of the amendments to Article 8. This will have the effect that the offence in Irish law of committing a war crime is expanded to include the use of microbial or other biological agents or toxins, the use of weapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by x-ray, and the use of laser weapons. Additionally, the offence in Irish law of committing a war crime in a non-international armed conflict will be expanded to include the following acts that already come within the definition of a war crime when committed in an international armed conflict. The use of poison-poisoned weapons, the use of asphyxiating poisonous gas, the use of bullets which expand, and intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Expanding the domestic definition of war crimes in this way will enable the State to give full effect to the principle of complementarity. This principle will allow the State parties to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in their territory or by their nationals so that the ICC is used only as a court of last resort. The second objective of these amendments is to take account of the Kampala Amendment on the crime of aggression. The third objective is to make it wholly clear and unambiguous that Ireland's cooperation with the ICC is not to be confined to those crimes that are domestic offences pursuant to section 9, subsection 1 of the 2006 Act, namely genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or an ancillary offence, but that such cooperation also extends to other offences within the jurisdiction of the ICC, in particular the crime of aggression or offences against the administration of justice by the court. Bringing this legislative clarity will ensure there is no impediment to Ireland fulfilling its obligations under the Rome Statute to cooperate with the ICC. Finally, it is also proposed to add into the Act an order making power allowing the Government to designate any future amendments of the crimes contained in the Rome Statute as crimes in respect of which Ireland can provide cooperation to the ICC. This would not criminalise the offences in Irish law, but would ensure that in a scenario where Ireland may not yet have ratified such an amendment, Ireland would still be able to fulfil its obligations to cooperate with the ICC. I now want to turn to the proposed legislative scheme for the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations, those other determinations being formal guard of cautions and probation orders. As I have previously stated, the Victorian era laws that criminalised consensual sexual activity between men are now widely recognised as a historical injustice driven by ignorance and prejudice. The offences in question were enacted under British rule, but very regrettably continued in force for the first 70 years of the Irish state before finally being abolished in 1993. However, consenting adults who were convicted of such offences still carry the entirely undeserved stain of a criminal record. We cannot rewrite history but we can try to undo the pain and hardship that those convictions inflicted upon so many men and their families. What our legislature can do is create a basis by which such a conviction can effectively be nullified so that its recipient is treated in law as if it never happened. Unfortunately, that cannot be achieved by the expedient of a blanket disregard. That's because the offences in question, and hence the recorded convictions, made no distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts, nor between adults and minors. Any given case must therefore be assessed on its merits by reference to information provided by the applicant on whatever records are available. In that context, a multi-stakeholder working group reported in 2023 with detailed recommendations on an application-based scheme for the disregard of such convictions. The proposals now before this House have been carefully crafted to align, as far as practicable, with those recommendations whilst ensuring that the scheme is legally and procedurally robust and that it's efficient and accessible for those who wish to apply. These proposals are being put forward as a new part of the Bill, set out across 14 sections, which firstly provide for the offences within the scope, the criteria for a disregard and who may apply, including where the person who received the conviction is now dead, the appointment of an independent person to consider applications and make recommendations to me as Minister, the main processes involved in considering and determining applications and issuing successful applicants with certificates of disregard, the legal effects of a disregard which are comprehensive, the procedures by which a disregard can be refused or where it's found to be necessary revoked, and provisions for the independent review of a refusal or revocation where requested by the applicant. I'm confident that these proposals provide a workable, equitable and accessible means by which those who were unfairly criminalised can finally seek the removal of this unwarranted blemish on their good name. They and their loved ones have waited a long time for a disregard mechanism and we now have an opportunity to pass it into law in a matter of weeks. I hope I can count on the support of the House for achieving this objective and just at this outset I want to recognise the very significant contributions made by Deputy O'Snuddig and Deputy Nash and indeed other deputies who put forward their own legislation previously and certainly their advocacy on this issue was a major catalyst and influence on me in terms of trying to ensure we can get this law enacted promptly. So in conclusion, while the amendments to the International Criminal Court Act and to provide for a disregard scheme are obviously completely different from each other thematically, what they have in common is that they've each been a long time coming and are time sensitive in their own ways. Both are also appropriate for inclusion in a miscellaneous criminal law bill currently before the House and I think this legal instrument offers the most expedient route to get them on the statute book and into force and that's why I commend the motion to the House.