15. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will consider changes in legislation in relation to the use of character references in sentencing hearings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35581/26]

My question relates to character references. We have seen a spate of them recently from former TDs, many of whom seem to be hanging around the Fianna Fáil party. They do not have any understanding of how damaging this is to the victims of these crimes. Why are we still allowing character references from people who have absolutely no expertise in anything to do with any of these crimes? It is an outrage.

I thank Deputy Coppinger for her question. As she will be aware, the law was recently changed in this area in respect of sexual offences. Under section 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Trafficking) Act 2024, it is now the case that people who want to give character evidence about a person convicted of a sexual offence have to do so either by affidavit or in the witness box. It has to be done on oath or affirmation. That is a positive change in the law.

Deputy Coppinger's question seems to ask why this is ever necessary. As I said previously, sentencing is one of the most complex aspects of a judge's function. The judge has to deal with the nature of the offence and its impact on the victim when determining the sentence. However, the judge is also sentencing the offender. It will be the case that the judge needs to know something about the offender for the purpose of imposing a sentence. For instance, I am sure if a person were convicted of causing criminal damage to an American plane in Shannon, Deputy Coppinger would believe that person should be entitled to have some character evidence adduced for them at the trial. We can never say we should rule out any form of character evidence because it is essential for a judge to understand the offender in order to impose a sentence.

However, certainly in respect of sexual offences, including rape, people who want to give character evidence have to do so by going into the witness box or by affidavit. There is a lot to be said for extending that to other serious offences.

We are not talking about writing a reference for a mother who took a packet of nappies because she is living in poverty. In most cases, these references are from relatives or former school principals who knew the offender 20 years ago, or from a GAA football manager or whoever. In the case of child sexual abuse and gender-based violence, they should be banned entirely because the people who carry out such offences are absolute master manipulators. They have groomed people, including adults and children, and fooled relatives. We have seen cases of femicide where the perpetrator fooled the entire family of the victim. No solitary thing can be believed about these people. No one knows what they have done in private, behind closed doors, in such a personal crime as child sexual abuse or gender-based violence. In a trial relating to two sisters, the last word was given to references for their brother who had already been found guilty of abusing them from relatives of the brother who knew nothing about him. The references need to go. They are very confusing and damaging.

I agree with Deputy Coppinger when she says abusers and people responsible for gender-based violence are manipulative. I met Naomi Long last Friday. She is the justice minister for Northern Ireland. She asked me to read the report about Katie Simpson's murder. I read it. It is a harrowing example of someone - the person responsible for her murder - who fooled the PSNI. It showed the level of manipulation that can exist.

Deputy Coppinger suggested we simply ban any form of evidence being given in respect of an offender. That would be problematic. As I said, an important part of a judge's function is to understand an offender. There will be varying degrees of manipulative or malign offenders. There will be people who deserve much longer sentences than others and for there to be some graded assessment by a court, it needs to know something about the offender. The alternative is to have mandatory sentences, as we do for murder, so the judge does not exercise any discretion.

I was particularly talking about sexual and gender-based violence because it is a particular type of personal crime. These people fool judges as well. Let us be frank. Judges are not exactly top of the class.

These references are designed to get people off. In the case of the two women I spoke to - and I know them - there were suspended sentences after character references were submitted.

I want to ask about this oath of affirmation. Where was the oath of affirmation for the person standing in the witness box when Jim Glennon, a former TD and a personal friend of the Minister, wrote a character reference for a person who had images of child sexual abuse? We all had to wait a week or so to find out who the former TD was. He did not stand up in the witness box, so it does not seem like the oath is being applied. Former Deputy Marc MacSharry wrote a reference for a property developer who terrorised children. This seems to be a plague within Fianna Fáil. A former Ceann Comhairle wrote a horrific reference as well and has never apologised to the victims, despite being asked to do so.

The Deputy may want to live in a country where guilt by association operates, but, fortunately, we do not live in such a country. If somebody the Deputy knew did something inappropriate or improper-----

They have.

-----I would not hold her responsible for it.

I am not.

We do not live in a country where there is guilt by association. To answer the question, the reason persons did not get into the witness box in the past is because the law has now been changed. If you want to give character evidence in respect of a person convicted of a sexual offence, you now have to do it by going into the witness box or on affidavit. The benefit of doing it that way is you can be subject to cross-examination, which means that the counsel for the DPP will be able to question you on the content of your evidence. My view is people should be entitled to give character evidence in respect of an accused but that they have to be prepared to stand over it. That is why sending in letters which are informally written or without substance is improper and inappropriate.