Apologise have been received from Deputy Mark Ward. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh will be attending in substitution. We also have received apologies from Senator Ruane and Senator McDowell. As usual, I remind members to turn off their mobile phones or switch them to flight mode.

Is plé an-tábhachtach é seo. Cuirim fáilte roimh ár gcainteoirí go léir inniu. Tá muid ag tnúth le cloisteáil faoina bhfuil le rá acu agus le labhairt faoi na saincheisteanna atá ós ár gcomhair.

The purpose of the meeting is to have an engagement on the topic of tackling gender-based violence. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Stephenie O'Keeffe and Ms Elizabeth Peña, Cuan, the Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Agency; Dr. Bláithín O'Shea, Safe Ireland; Ms Lauren Reilly, host of the "Victim to Victory" podcast, a very well listened to podcast; Mr. Shane Kelly, CEO, Men's Aid; and Ms Sarah Benson, CEO, Women's Aid. I also welcome Ms Margaret Loftus, a former member of An Garda Síochána and herself a survivor. I thank all the contributors.

As we all know, and as the committee has discussed on several occasions, domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is a scourge on our society. If there were any doubts about that, those would have been quickly allayed by the number of organisations and individuals who have contacted me personally and I am sure other members of this committee in recent days indicated that they, too, would love an opportunity to be able to give of their own experiences and make recommendations for improvements in policy and resources that are required. That is a long way of letting the committee know at the outset that this is an issue that we will return to in the not too distant future and will remain consistently on the top of our agenda.

The format of the meeting is that we will invite each organisation or individual to make an opening statement to a maximum of three minutes and then members of the committee, in the order in which they indicate to me, will put their questions. In order to manage the committee's time effectively, we will have time limits on the contributions. We will get a sense of what they will be when we get closer. If possible, we will allow for a second round

Before I invite those opening statements, I have to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regard to reference a witness may make to any other people in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I ask Dr. Stephenie O'Keeffe, on behalf of Cuan, to open the meeting.

Cuan is very grateful for the opportunity to make a submission to the joint committee on the topic of tackling gender-based violence, and for the invitation to appear before the Committee today.

As members will be aware, Cuan was established in 2024 operating under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. While the Department of justice and the Minister hold responsibility for policy and legislation in the area, Cuan forms an important part of the State's infrastructure for combatting domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV.

Our agency was created to ensure a whole-of-government, structured, accountable and consistent national response to DSGBV, supporting victims and survivors while working towards a society free from such violence.

Cuan's establishment followed significant engagement with the sector, as a core commitment in Zero Tolerance - The Third National Strategy on Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence.

Our statutory functions reflect the whole-of-society nature of this work, as follows: we co-ordinate whole-of-government action on DSGBV by engaging with 26 statutory implementation partners to improve co-ordination and implementation of the third national strategy and reporting on their delivery to the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. We provide support, including financial assistance, to DSGBV services, while also driving and co-ordinating the complex multi-agency work of expanding refuge and safe home capacity in the State. In 2025, €58.4 million in public funding was directed to 78 service providers nationwide, and this figure has increased in 2026 to €69 million, reflecting the sustained support Government is providing to DSGBV services. We contribute to the knowledge and evidence base to support policy and service development because understanding how widespread DSGBV is, and whether interventions are making a difference, requires sustained investment in research and data. We deliver public awareness campaigns and education initiatives to challenge the norms that permit DSGBV to persist. We currently co-ordinate the delivery of four national campaigns on DSGBV, spanning awareness-raising, service signposting, prevention, and behavioural and attitudinal change. We have also integrated education as a core element of our work.

Over the past two years, the agency has worked to create capacity and capability to deliver these functions, underpinned by strong governance and operational structures. While Cuan is a relatively young agency carrying an important public mission, we have achieved a lot as evidenced in our progress reports, and the systems, partnerships and funding mechanisms established in 2024 and 2025 are solid platforms from which to accelerate change.

The work ahead is substantial but Cuan's establishment, and the creation of core functions over the past two years reflect what is possible when strong political will, dedicated public and civil servants and a committed sector work in genuine partnership toward a shared and urgent goal.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss our work with the committee.

I thank Dr. O'Keeffe. The next contributor is Dr. Bláithín O'Shea.

I thank the Cathaoirleach, the LeasChathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to appear before the committee today. I am the law and policy manager at Safe Ireland.

Safe Ireland is the national social change agency working to end domestic, sex, gender and sexualitybased violence, DSGSBV, in Ireland. Safe Ireland recognises that DSGSBV is a wide-scale, pervasive social problem, never reducible to poor personal choice, that requires a national domestic violence, DV, infrastructure to ensure safe and meaningful pathways out of abuse for women and children. In this regard, our focus is to create integrated, competent community-based responses to DSGSBV wherever it occurs.

This is because leaving abuse is not a single decision or intervention; rather, it is a complex process that unfolds across justice, housing, social protection, education and health, often at moments of escalating danger. For instance, while refuge is essential and saves lives, it is only one point on a long and complex journey to freedom.

The development of a national DV infrastructure is dependent on the collaborative effort of central and local government, Cuan as the State agency for DSGBV in Ireland and DV service providers. Safe Ireland plays an important role in this because we, through our services, co-ordinate and support a national network of 37 specialist domestic violence services, through which survivors access refuge, safe homes, court accompaniment, Garda liaison, advocacy and ongoing supports at times of serious risk.

From a justice perspective, Safe Ireland is asking the committee to prioritise three main issues: first, that domestic abuse be recognised, in both law and practice, as patterned and cumulative harm, rather than a series of discrete incidents, so that the justice system can respond to escalation and risk - this is particularly relevant at separation and postseparation, including in how protective orders and their breach are understood and addressed; second, that attention be paid to how justice processes operate on the ground - survivors' access to protection should not vary by geography, court practice or procedure, as Safe Ireland sees daily through our national network delays, adjournments, inconsistent approaches and the absence of traumainformed practice in our courts are core barriers to prevention, protection and confidence in the justice system; and, third, persistent barriers to civil legal aid for survivors be addressed. Access to legal advice and representation at the point of exiting abuse is essential to the right of access to justice and to equality before the law. Where a perpetrator, often after years of economic abuse, can secure private representation, and a survivor cannot access legal aid, the justice process itself risks reproducing the power imbalance it is meant to remedy.

Safe Ireland values our close working relationship with Cuan and with Women's Aid as a longstanding member of our network.

We acknowledge the wide range of perspectives and expertise here today. Thank you and I welcome your questions.

I thank Dr. O'Shea. We now have the host of the "Victim to Victory" podcast, Ms Lauren Reilly.

Hello. I am here today because this topic is extremely close to my heart. While I am not here to speak about my personal experience, I am here on behalf of the many victims and survivors I have had the opportunity to speak to through my podcast, "Victim to Victory". This platform was created to provide a safe space for people to use their voices, share real experiences of abuse, and raise awareness so that patterns can be better understood and real change can happen.

I have come to understand that there is a serious disconnect between what victims are told to expect and what actually happens when they come forward. People are told they will be protected. However, the reality does not always reflect that. First I will speak about bail conditions. Many people who carry out abuse do not care about what the law says on paper, yet time and again they are given chance after chance without accountability that reflects the seriousness of what is happening. This creates a situation where victims are left managing their own risk in their day-to-day lives while the system appears to have it managed on paper. At times it can feel like the system is gambling with people’s safety.

Second, access to video link facilities should be standard across both family and criminal courts. These systems often overlap, yet victims are still being placed in environments where they are expected to be in close proximity to the person who abused them. This is not just difficult, it is retraumatising. People have a constitutional right to be protected from further harm, yet they are required to fight for something as basic as feeling safe enough to give evidence. The reality is that sometimes all it takes is one simple look for a victim to shut down completely.

There also needs to be a stronger trauma-informed approach across the entire legal system. Victims are expected to present clearly, consistently and calmly without full recognition of how trauma impacts memory, behaviour and the ability to engage. When this is not understood, it can directly affect how they are perceived. We are living in a society where victims are encouraged to come forward. However, the system has not fully caught up with what is needed to support them when they do. That gap is where people are falling through the cracks. This is not just about the process. It is about real consequences for people’s safety, their well-being and in some cases their lives.

This is not about one case. It is about a pattern that is being experienced again and again. What I am asking for is simple, that we stop looking at the systems as procedures and start looking at the real impact they have on the people who are going through them and their families. No one should be asked to come forward and then be left feeling unprotected when they do. They need to see that they matter and that their lives matter.

I thank Ms Reilly. Next we will hear from Men's Aid and Mr. Shane Kelly.

I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to appear before the committee today. I am the chief executive officer with Men’s Aid Ireland, a national charity supporting men who experience domestic abuse, coercive control and related forms of abuse. At the outset I want to acknowledge the very important work being done across this sector by organisations here today that are supporting victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. This work is vital and deserves recognition. Our purpose here today is not in any way to diminish the experiences of other victims or the importance of the services that support them. Rather, it is to ensure that male victims are also seen, recognised and included within Ireland’s response.

From the Men’s Aid front-line experience, we know that male victims remain under-recognised and too often hidden from view. Many men do not identify what is happening to them as abuse, particularly where it is psychological, emotional, financial or coercively controlling, rather than overtly physical. Others feel shame or fear they will not be believed or simply do not know where to turn. As a result, too many men suffer in silence and seek help only when the situation has become very serious. Men’s Aid believes that if Ireland is to tackle gender-based violence effectively, the response must be inclusive, evidence-informed and grounded in lived reality.

From our perspective, there are three practical areas that deserve attention. The first one is the clear gap in safe emergency accommodation for male victims. A man leaving an abusive situation may have nowhere safe to go. We believe there should be safe beds, or safe spaces, available in each province and linked to wraparound supports such as counselling, healthcare, legal guidance, housing assistance and onward referral. Second, public awareness needs to speak more clearly to male victims. If the message is not explicit, many men will assume it is not meant for them. Public messaging should make clear that men can be victims of domestic abuse that they will be taken seriously, and that support is available. Third, prevention must begin early. We believe that education for young people on healthy relationships, respect, consent, boundaries, coercive control and abuse is essential if we want to improve understanding and reduce harm.

Recognising male victims does not take away from anyone else. It strengthens the overall response. It helps protect victims, children, families and communities more effectively. Men’s Aid is simply asking that no victim be left unseen and no victim be left without a pathway to safety. Thank you.

I thank Mr. Kelly. From Women's Aid we will now hear from Ms Sarah Benson. She is welcome back.

I thank the Chair. Women’s Aid thanks the committee for the opportunity to contribute to its examination of measures to tackle gender-based violence. Unfortunately, despite positive developments in recent years, gender-based violence has not diminished. In fact, research shows ongoing high levels and new forms of intimate partner violence, coercive control, sexual violence and technology-facilitated abuse, all of which disproportionately affect women.

Women’s Aid is especially concerned about the proliferation of misogynistic content online, the huge and harmful impact of the manosphere and violent pornography, and the use of new technologies to increase and amplify violence against women, as seen in nudification apps and chatbot abuse. The impacts on survivors of both online and offline violence are profound, including physical harm, psychological trauma, economic insecurity and barriers to accessing justice, safety and long-term recovery. Prevention therefore remains a key priority and the work on gender equality and healthy relationships already happening in schools and third level institutions should continue. It is also vital that violent and misogynistic online content is addressed at EU and national level, with the forthcoming Irish Presidency providing a great opportunity for increasing protection and making platforms accountable. This must include addressing the harms of pornography, which have been clearly identified as a significant driver of misogynistic attitudes and gender-based violence.

In terms of legislation that will be before this committee, Women’s Aid is keen that progress is made on amending the Domestic Violence Act to make the breach of a protective order a hybrid offence that may be prosecuted as a summary offence or on indictment, which gives the court the possibility of refusing bail where appropriate. We also wish to see progress on amending the Guardianship of Infants Act so that a parent convicted of killing the other parent could be removed from being a guardian. The issue of safeguarding the child without waiting for the end of criminal proceeding, which can take years, should also be addressed, as suggested in our previous submission. Engaging in further consultations with survivors and specialist services to ensure, at a minimum, mechanisms to legally privilege the use of counselling notes in sexual violence trials must also be progressed.

Family law continues to be one of the most intractable issues for women and children separating from an abuser, as documented in our recent research, which found that court processes regarding custody and access are retraumatising for adult and child survivors, and their outcomes unsafe for women and their children. We recommend that the implementation of the family law strategy is progressed without delay, including full reform of the expert reports, the in camera rule, civil legal aid and implementation of the Family Courts Act. In all this, there should be clear and consistent recognition of the endemic prevalence of domestic violence and abuse in the family law systems, with any reform always centring on recognising and responding to abuse risk. State-funded supervised contact centres need to be included in the reform.

Finally, we note the need for continuing support of survivors, including child survivors of domestic violence and abuse and commercial sexual exploitation, by improving refuge, housing and financial and counselling support, resourcing specialist gender-based violence services and ensuring accessible justice processes, including guaranteed interpreter services and options for remote hearings. We hope the forthcoming fourth strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence will address all this in a whole-of-government approach, including in the areas of housing and homelessness strategies, and with an intersectional lens. We remain available to discuss any of these topics in more detail. Thank you.

I thank Ms Benson. I am aware that a vote has been called in the Dáil.

Maybe there is time for us to close up the opening statements before we suspend.

The vote has only just been called, has it?

Yes, in the last minute or two.

Okay. I am sorry to put pressure on Ms Loftus. She is very welcome. She has three minutes.

I thank members of this committee and the Chair for the opportunity to address the critical issue of tackling gender-based violence, particularly in cases involving members of An Garda Síochána. I appear before the committee as a former member of An Garda Síochána and someone who has experienced domestic abuse. The evidence set out in this submission points to systemic and institutional shortcomings across policing, the judicial system and oversight mechanisms in Ireland. These shortcomings brought me personally to my knees when I became a victim and sought help from both An Garda Síochána and the judicial system. At the centre of this issue is a fundamental question: how can An Garda Síochána investigate domestic violence impartially and effectively when members of the organisation may themselves be perpetrators? This inherent conflict of interest undermines the integrity of investigations, compromises victim safety, erodes public trust and enables harmful conduct to persist within the system.

Figures confirm that more than 60,000 calls relating to coercive control were made to Garda stations across the country last year alone. Yet, since January 2019, only 25 convictions have been recorded, two of which with the sole charge of coercive control.

One in three women in Ireland will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. According to Women’s Aid, over 32,000 victims sought support in a single year, almost half of whom reported negative experiences with An Garda Síochána. These figures reflect not only the scale of the issue but serious deficiencies in how victims of domestic and sexual abuse are treated when they seek protection and justice. The evidence highlights recurring systemic failures across policing and the wider judicial system, including compromised investigations, conflicts of interest and delays that undermine both the integrity and effectiveness of proceedings. It also demonstrates that victims frequently face significant procedural barriers, including intrusive disclosure processes, insignificant recognition of coercive control in family law and limited transparency through the use of reporting restrictions.

This submission sets out clear, evidence-based recommendations to address these issues. It calls for stronger accountability within policing through independent oversight bodies with real enforcement powers, alongside operational reforms to reduce delays, strengthen case management and ensure timely and efficient investigations. It also highlights the need for safeguards governing disclosure processes to ensure they are proportionate, necessary and not used in any way that retraumatises.

The failures I have outlined in this submission are not abstract or theoretical; they are experiences I have lived through in the most personal and devastating way. They have broken me both emotionally and psychologically and in every part of my life. I am here today not because the system protected me but because of a strength within me and the strength of the women who came before me and those who stand beside me today. It is my privilege to stand before this justice committee. I hope my privilege is met with the committee’s responsibility to listen, act and change what must be changed.

I thank Ms Loftus very much. I thank her for the bravery she has shown. We will have to suspend for a few moments for a vote in the Dáil. I apologise to our witnesses. We will begin questions and answers when we resume.

I apologise again to our guests. I thank each of them for their opening statements. I invite members to engage with the witnesses in the order in which they indicated.

I suggest a first round of seven minutes each. The first to indicate was Deputy Conway-Walsh, followed by Senator Gallagher.

I thank Deputy Mark Ward for enabling me to step in in his place. The reason that I wanted to do that was because of the subject of the meeting. I thank all the witnesses for their opening statements. I particularly thank Ms Loftus who is from my own county of Mayo. I commend her on her bravery and courage and for the service that she is doing along with all these other services to the women that we meet all of the time, and indeed, the men as Mr. Kelly alluded to, and for those who are impacted by gender-based violence. I wish to commend the really good decent members of An Garda Síochána with whom I have worked who treat victims with compassion and comprehensively, which is important.

I have two questions for Ms Loftus. The first relates to some questions that I have submitted to the Minister and the Commissioner regarding the number of members of An Garda Síochána who have protection orders or barring orders against them. The number that I was given was ten, but I understand that may be because of members who are self-disclosing. I asked about the protocol about how we know about these orders. The basic question is: how do we know when a woman or a man is reporting incidents of gender-based violence that the person sitting in front of them does not have a barring order or protection order against them? I was told by the Commissioner's office that the document outlining the protocol is not a public facing document and could not be shared externally. I wish to get Ms Loftus's comments on that.

The other issue, which I have heard Ms Loftus mention on many occasions, is there appears to be issues between the family law court and the criminal courts and how the evidence is presented in both of those forums, specifically with regard to in camera evidence. I ask her to elaborate on those two points. If there is any time left, I will ask her about accountability looks like from her end.

On barring orders or any type of family law order and members of An Garda Síochána, it is absolutely impossible for the Garda Commissioner or the Minister for justice to have an accurate number of how many there are. If he said ten, I imagine what he meant by that is ten who have self-disclosed that they have barring orders against them. Orders made in the family law courts are protected by the in camera rule. If the true number was found out other than it being self-disclosed, it would have been obtained illegally and the person disclosing that information could technically be held in contempt of court. It is not possible to ever know the true number who have those orders against them.

Regarding the crossover between the criminal courts and the family law courts, I know from my own experience having been in both and both running in tandem that I was told that I should be ashamed of myself and I should go home and apologise to my kids, and if the judge in the family law court had jurisdiction that, she would throw out every one of the charges that were coming up for the courts. However, the rest of those proceedings were all done in camera and I cannot even tell the Deputy about what happened after that. There is no crossover. There was evidence that I would have given at different times for different applications in the family law court and they could not be used within the criminal law setting. A part of them were, but permission had to be given every single time something was to be used. Every single time that I went into the family law courts, I was not believed. When I disclosed abuse, I was accused of parental alienation. I was told that there was no place in that court to be talking about what I was talking about.

The in camera rule was introduced in the 1930s or something like that. It may have been introduced with the intention of protecting the privacy of the family and maybe it was done for good intention, but it has led to the family law courts in Ireland now being a modern day of version of mother and baby homes. I am not the only person to think that. My experience in the family law court is very similar to an awful lot of other people and it is certainly not unique to me.

Regarding true accountability, the recommendations that I made in my submission is that true accountability is when someone can walk into a Garda station and know that the person they are meeting is not a perpetrator of domestic violence. Every time a file is done in a Garda station, no matter what the offence is, but I am specifically speaking about domestic violence investigations, that file goes to a superintendent. That superintendent decides if there are going to be charges or not or if that file is going to be sent forward to the Office of the DPP for further advice on charges. If that superintendent is a perpetrator themselves or has a barring order against them, how they can impartially or professionally direct on that file? On the numbers that I have brought up, 60,000 complaints were made last year to An Garda Síochána regarding coercive control. There have been two convictions for sole charges of coercive control. There is a complete and utter mismatch. All of the agencies in this room are doing absolutely vital work. The legislation that is coming forward is of huge benefit to society, but that legislation is no good if the enforcers of that legislation are perpetrators themselves.

Ms Loftus mentioned the number in An Garda Síochána. What needs to change for that to be transparent? It would be very useful for the public to know the extent of the problem, although not the individual details.

If you self-disclose, the internal policy says that you "may" be open to disciplinary proceedings. It does not even go as far as saying that you will be. To get a barring order, a very serious offence has had to have occurred for a judge to grant a barring order. When someone is given a barring order and they go to work like I did, the person who that barring order was granted against left that courtroom, got their State issued firearm and hopped into a patrol car. Accountability is at the very minimum that those members are not public facing members, and they are not at any point going to be meeting vulnerable victims looking for help.

I thank the Deputy. We will allow her in for the second round. Next up is Senator Gallagher, followed by Deputy Butterly.

I welcome the witnesses to the meeting. I thank them sincerely for the work that they do in their area. It really is truly invaluable.

I have two questions. I will start with Ms Loftus. I thank her for her bravery in coming forward. I am sure it has been a very painful journey for her. What was her experience of the Garda investigation into her complaint? How is life for her at this point in time?

On the Garda investigation, at the very beginning when I got a barring order and in the immediate aftermath of that, my life was made absolutely hell in the organisation. I was intimidated in many ways. I had my pay stopped and transfers cancelled. I had unauthorised welfare checks carried out on my children. I had local gardaí being dispatched to my home house to see where I was because there were missing reports being lodged in Dublin about me. I decided that I could not take this any further. I was getting threats on my life at this point. I met with a ranking officer and showed them all the evidence that I had with everything that you could imagine that would be put in a file with a view to going forward and there being a criminal investigation. Within days of me handing over all that evidence, a direct threat was put on my life. He had been taken aside, shown everything and more or less told to get his ducks in order, and what I had on him. I had to write my own statement and email it directly to the Garda Commissioner's office. Within days of that, an investigation team did come to my home and carried out an investigation. I cannot commend them enough. The current Garda Commissioner was the senior investigating officer in that case. I have nothing but the best to say about them. They did everything that they are supposed to do in an investigation.

We see bravery awards every single year for gardaí who go above and beyond the call of duty, but there is also a lot of bravery in doing your job when the odds are stacked against you. The investigation had to be carried out in secrecy. As much as I was very disappointed and extremely insulted by the plea deal made with the DPP's office, it had to absorb that as much as I did.

The case was before the courts 58 times over a six-year period. Throughout that process, my former partner was granted full legal aid. After he was formally interviewed about the charges, which went forward as threats to kill, and while the file was being prepared for the DPP's office, he was promoted and given a State-issued firearm by the organisation. It was really hard for me at that time because it is really difficult to proceed with a criminal investigation particularly when you are a member of An Garda Síochána yourself, and knowing the odds are already stacked against you. The majority of my colleagues, at that time, would have distanced themselves from me. I was very much viewed as the problem. On the one hand, Mr. Bolger was being charged with threatening to kill me but, on the other, the same organisation tasked with the protection of life was promoting him, rewarding him and allowing him to flourish within its system.

With regard to my life since I have done this, I was asked on "Prime Time" whether, if I had my time back again, I would do what I did and come forward. There is a very small margin between "Yes" and "No" in my answer but I would always go with "Yes" because, no matter what I had to face and all the hurdles I have gone over within An Garda Síochána and the court system, including the family law court system, it has still been easier than being in the relationship.

Right now, I am in a very happy place. I am a very happy person. I am very content with my life. However, do not underestimate the amount of trauma that this has caused me. Today I am completely emotionally detached so I can articulate my experience in the hope no one else will have to go through what I have gone through. This affects me and all of my wider family. Only three nights ago, my sister texted me in the middle of the night to state she had woken up having had a nightmare about my former husband and the Garda's response to him. Members of my wider family are still going through post-traumatic stress because of what has happened in this case.

I thank Ms Loftus for sharing that.

Let me focus on Dr. O'Keeffe's work throughout the country, primarily in my own neck of the woods, Cavan and Monaghan, which area I share with the Cathaoirleach. Where are we at on the proposed refuge for Monaghan town and the safe houses for both counties?

I thank the Senator for that question. We are doing really well. We have, in the first two years since the agency was established, put a huge amount of effort into formalising a very ambitious pipeline to meet Government targets. He will know there was one refuge within Cavan and Monaghan. Working very closely with Safe Ireland, the local authorities and the Department of housing, we will have three safe homes in Monaghan this year. We will have three safe homes in Cavan. As the Senator knows, a multi-stakeholder environment is required to enable these things to happen. The homes have been identified by the local authority. We have very positive news in Monaghan in that stage 1 of the capital assistance scheme has been formally approved in relation to the building of a new refuge there, but the planning process will take time, as will construction. In the interim, we are going to put in place, with Safe Ireland, an interim refuge on a site that has been identified by the local authority on the basis that there is significant need and that it will respond to that need for a short period until such time as we are through the planning process and the delivery of the refuge. I acknowledge Safe Ireland for its work in this regard. It is running a service and managing several services, planning and building a new one, and putting in an interim one, but we think it will be a good way for the organisation to work on putting in a new refuge at the location in question. In this regard, we must consider all the stakeholder engagement that needs to happen at local level before the bigger, new one opens.

That is okay. I thank all the guests.

I welcome everybody. We could have committee meeting after committee meeting and fill the Dáil agenda for the next four or five years just talking about this subject. It is quite overwhelming when we see guests coming in time and again. Today we will have heard the testimony of Ms Loftus, just as we have heard testimonies previously. The weight of the legislation coming before the Houses shows exactly what a problem we have.

On zero tolerance, I might turn to Dr. O'Keeffe first. Zero tolerance should mean zero tolerance. We have been very fortunate in Louth in that we have the Drogheda refuge and Women's Aid Dundalk. We visited to see the new build starting to take shape. That is wonderful news but the core of the problem is the perpetrator. We continue to have to provide accommodation for victims and survivors because we have not been able to remove perpetrators effectively from their homes. I have seen at first hand that in the District Court it is virtually impossible to get a barring order. We are not talking about this. The offence is far too serious to leave women or men in a situation where they have to leave their homes. On doing so, they are subject to financial hardship. There can be medical issues. I call for emergency medical cards for everybody who must go into the refuge. Women's Aid Dundalk is extraordinarily good at helping women to secure medical cards, but the women should not be in this position in the first place. They should have emergency medical cards from the moment they present in the refuge.

We really have to put more focus on how we deal with the perpetrator. I would like Dr. O'Keeffe's views in general about that.

Training, legislative change and legal aid are all related to processes that hinder the victim-survivor in extraordinary ways. Ms Reilly mentioned that the perpetrator may be in a position to engage private legal representation. The person who has been abused for all the years, be it coercively or otherwise, may not qualify for legal aid. We have seen proposals on the schemes that are not satisfactory because, as we see in the family courts, solicitors and the barristers are, quite frankly, running away cases because of continuous adjournments, the one case, one fee arrangement and the delays. This, in turn, is hurting the victim. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on that. Anyone can take that question. I started with Dr. O'Keeffe but no doubt Ms Benson will have opinions on this.

I have to say to Ms Loftus that I am a huge fan of An Garda Síochána, but it struck me that I have not received any replies to the vast majority of questions I submitted to it in early March. I asked about dismissals from the organisation. The first part of the response was that it could not tell me anything because of GDPR. What struck me was that when the Commissioner gives a formal notice to dismiss a member, they may resign as an alternative to dismissal or in lieu of dismissal. I find it quite extraordinary that when your boss tells you that you are fired, you get the option to retire and maybe go off into the sunset. This is particularly the case when it is left to them to disclose whether or not there is a barring order against them or the treatment received. Ms Loftus was vilified within her own workplace, yet her partner was regarded as a hero, by the sound of it. Effectively, there is the potential for an individual not even to get dismissed because he will get the option to retire.

I am aware that she has met the Commissioner, and I would like to know-----

I have not.

She has not met the Commissioner. She should meet the Commissioner because I would like to know what his position is. He was here a couple of months ago and said this matter was on the top of his agenda in terms of training and educating the force and tackling it head-on. I would like to know the Commissioner's thinking but Ms Loftus is not in a position to tell me that because she has not met him. I was under the impression that she had.

I can say to the Deputy that, in regard to members resigning or retiring, my ex in this case, Garda Trevor Bolger, is very much still a member of An Garda Síochána, although he entered a guilty plea before Easter last year.

In regards to the Garda Commissioner, I have made numerous requests to meet him. I have been told there is a process going through at the moment in regards to resignation, retirement or being sacked and he would like that to run its course before he would sit down and meet with me.

I must remind members and guests about naming individuals.

Correct, Chair, but it is an important issue.

It is, of course. Perhaps Ms Benson wants to respond to some of the points there in the time available.

I will be very brief. I am conscious of time. Regarding the civil legal aid, I had the privilege of being before the committee. I think I was the only non-lawyer before the committee on that topic. It struck me that Women's Aid; Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC; the Law Society of Ireland; the Bar Council; the Legal Aid Board and, indeed, the response from the committee was fairly unanimous that urgent, radical reform of civil legal aid is required. The suggestions are there and it is a multifaceted approach that is required. I am still baffled as to why there has not been any movement from the Department or the Minister on this.

With respect to perpetrators, taking a step back there is also that primary prevention piece because we are constantly using so many resources and so much of our energy and time to deal with the harm once it has happened. We really need the kind of deep understanding of consent and the dismantling of those unhelpful gender norms in order to ensure that future generations are not facing this situation. We know, because we run our Too Into You project which is with young people, that the problem is just as bad and we are not doing as much as we should. That is urgent. As Dr. O'Shea has said, it is a whole-of-community response that we really need.

Thank you. I will let Deputy Butterly back in for the second round. I call Senator Kelleher followed by Deputy Gannon.

Gabhaim buíochas go léir. I want to focus my questions on the systemic failings that have been encountered. Ms Reilly mentioned in her opening remarks that there is a disconnect between what victims are told will happen and what actually happens during that process. I want to ask Ms Loftus what her experience was as compared with what was supposed to happen. Our job is to try to play a part in improving the situation from a legislative point of view. I am asking about her experience within An Garda Síochána and what was supposed to happen versus what actually happened. Where were the obvious, systemic failings?

I remember a very specific moment hearing about this strategy in place for zero tolerance against gender-related violence and it was wholeheartedly welcomed across the entire country. I met with the Minister for Justice at that time. I spoke at length about the contents of that and also the experience I was living through at that time. The only resolution I could get from her at that time was a hug. On one hand this was being announced but on the other hand I was in a situation where hundreds of thousands of euro was being directed towards me being intimidated, my voice being silenced, everything done to ensure my case did not come to the forefront and the perpetrator being allowed to flourish. It was like a sense of gaslighting in itself. I was being told one thing on one side but on the other side what I lived was completely and utterly in contrast to that strategy. The strategy is fantastic, it is brilliant and I have read through it all, but it is no use just on paper. It is lovely reading, it is really nice and we put it back on the shelf. The reality is so different and my situation is not unique. I have had hundreds of people, both men and women, contacting me since my case came out. They have very similar experiences to me. We go through the courts. I fought to get my case investigated and it was really difficult.

An article appeared in a newspaper one day and it was completely anonymous. Within days of that article appearing, a full investigation team arrived at my door in Mayo from Dublin, questioning me on where the journalist got their information for that article. Subsequently, in Dublin a journalist for The Irish Times was also getting questioned in regards to it. I thought what an irony it was that I was years into fighting for justice but in that case a complaint was made and within days I was being questioned. It is very unfortunate but the reality is the very opposite of what is on paper.

Ms Loftus spoke about whether, if she was to go back to the time of the horrendous crime that was committed against her, she would go through the process again. She said she would go through it again but there is a doubt in her mind. That is very similar to what we heard from a victim of sexual violence who was before the committee when we were discussing the use of counselling notes during trial. Ms Benson mentioned the family side, the custody side and the retraumatisation of victims. Ms Loftus has talked about her life being made hell internally in An Garda Síochána, her pay being stopped, transfers being denied, the abuse of power, the impunity involved and the compromised investigations. As a serving member of An Garda Síochána, did Ms Loftus go out on sick leave? Was that the case?

Yes.

What supports were supposed to be in place for Ms Loftus compared to what actually happened from within An Garda Síochána? That sounds like an inadequate question, given everything Ms Loftus has said today. I am just trying to establish what supports were supposed to have been there versus what she experienced.

There was an internal welfare employee assistance service. I met with the person who was over that. She was very high-ranking. I remember the remedy she gave was that they were going to lock my human resource management file into a locker in the Phoenix Park to ensure it could not be tampered with any further. That was the remedy offered to me at that time. I was supposed to have been satisfied and seen that as okay. Other than that, I cannot say a whole pile was offered to me in a positive sense. Certainly, on the negative side there was plenty. I do not think on any level in any type of organisation that how I, as a victim, was treated would be acceptable.

Did anybody who was party to the horrendous abuse Ms Loftus experienced post the domestic violence express any contrition or apology for their role in what was done against her by serving members?

No, I have never received an apology, nor would I look for one, to be honest. I do not think an apology is of any benefit to me or any other woman going through this at the moment. Senator Kelleher asked what happened internally. I remember there were over 20 or 25 PULSE checks done on me internally by my abuser, so it was very difficult for anyone to put their name to anything to do with me because everything on my PULSE record was being monitored. I do not have any anger over anyone in this at all, actually, and I am not doing this out of any type of hatred or spite. I have nothing but good to say about the Garda organisation but I do this with absolute hope that, going forward, things can change. The thought of those coming behind me is my motivation in this. I do not want an apology from anyone. Action would be the apology in itself.

I thank Ms Loftus.

I call Deputy Gannon followed by Deputy Kelly.

I thank Ms Loftus for her contribution, which has been jaw-dropping in parts. I want to talk about the timeline. Her first complaint was made in 2012 and no meaningful investigation began until 2018, and that was only after she compiled the case file herself and went directly to the Commissioner. If she had not taken those actions, what does she think would have happened?

I would be in prison right now. Just before I contacted that officer and started putting a file together myself, a private investigator arrived into Castlebar Garda station with an attachment and committal warrant to send me to prison based on false allegations. For starters, I could be in prison. Otherwise, I am unsure if the Deputy has seen recent research in the UK showing that more women who are victims of domestic violence die by suicide than by domestic homicide. I imagine the situation is similar in Ireland. I do not mean to be condescending in this but I cannot express enough that unless you are in it, you do not understand it.

I used to have a repetitive nightmare all of the time that I was in a concrete box and could not get out and everything around me was making sure that I could not get out of that box. It was a really difficult place to be. If I had not come forward and if I had not done all those things, I am not quite sure what would have happened, but I know I certainly would not be sitting here. I know I would not be having any type of a fulfilling life. I would either not be here at all, as in dead, or I would be in prison. It is one or the other.

In answering a previous question Ms Loftus talked about the fact that when she compiled her file her abuser was actually given access to information and told to get his affairs in order. That, for me, speaks to a systematic cover-up within the An Garda Síochána. Is that being investigated at the moment?

In 2020 I made a protected disclosure to Fiosrú, formerly GSOC. Apart from his actions, I outlined the systemic response to everything that I had said and I also highlighted the bigger picture of victims. During the criminal trial that protected disclosure got disclosed to the defence before it was even investigated. The organisation and the system that I had written about in that disclosure had already had sight of the disclosure before it was investigated. I do not have any trust that it can be in any way impartially investigated at this stage.

Ms Loftus mentioned the events after the report appeared in the paper. My understanding was that report actually came from the court itself, in the sense that it was already in the courts. Ms Loftus's case was in the courts and then it appeared in the paper and then she was questioned by An Garda Síochána. Is that correct?

No, the report in the paper was before it was brought before the courts but the investigation at that time had commenced. The report made reference to a detective being appointed and given a firearm although they were under investigation for domestic violence offences. It was a completely anonymised report and there was no way of figuring out who it was about. As I already said, the journalist who wrote that and I were both questioned about that and where the information came from. That was the second time. There was a previous report in the Irish Independent, similarly completely anonymous, and an investigation was also launched as a result and I was also questioned on that, so twice in total I have been questioned about anonymised articles in the newspapers within days of them appearing.

Several months ago Women's Aid released its report on capturing how many domestic violence cases were reported to An Garda Síochána. Given some of the evidence we have just heard, where does that leave us in the sense of the administration of justice and how those cases are dealt with?

The data that is referred to is from our national domestic violence helpline and we actually give it every year to An Garda Síochána before we publish it. I would also put a big health warning on it. We get tens of thousands of calls to the helpline every year and we record data, which is completely anonymised. We do not ask everyone a series of questions. It is very much guided by the caller. If they disclose that they have had contact with An Garda Síochána, we will note it. If they then disclose whether they found the response helpful or unhelpful, we will note that. We also gather some qualitative information which, again, is completely anonymised. We give it to the National Protected Services Bureau in advance of publication, so it is aware of it. We do it every year and invariably it is the same result - slightly more than 50% found it helpful and slightly under 50% found it unhelpful. Thematically if we look at why and what it is, the same things come up again and again. Where the response is unhelpful, it is actually in breach of An Garda Síochána's own policy on domestic violence and abuse. For example, arrests are not being made on breaches of orders, it is not following through on what it said it would do, people are not being believed or risks are not being assessed. To Ms Loftus's point as well, however, when the Garda response is helpful, it can be absolutely transformative. It can make the difference to prompt someone to embark on a journey towards access to justice and safety. A good Garda response will also involve referral to our national helpline, the local domestic violence services or the DAC teams in place in some of the areas. However, if it is a bad response, it breaks trust, possibly forever. As a frontline service provider and the provider of the 24-hour national helpline, if somebody rings us at 3 a.m. and they are in danger and in fear, the only place we can encourage them to go is An Garda Síochána. We are highly motivated to work as a critical friend with An Garda Síochána and we give it this information. We had a meeting with An Garda in recent days on our imminent 2025 report, among other things. The Garda has said it will use it, put it to work in training and look at the themes. That is a unit we partner with on our high-risk support project. There are 14,000 members, however, and there is a huge challenge, even in fundamentally understanding coercive control, let alone the new legislation coming in, in terms of stalking and Garda powers and how they should be responding to that. Training is still a big issue.

Ms Loftus said that she is long past looking for any form of apology. What can this committee do today in terms of calls we can make to acknowledge Ms Loftus coming in here and make sure it was worth her time?

I made a number of recommendations in my submission. First and foremost, before introducing any new legislation, the enforcers of that legislation need to really be looked at in the context of their abilities and capabilities to enforce the legislation if they are perpetrators themselves. Nothing else is going to work. It is like building a house on a bad foundation; that house will never be right.

First, a couple of general comments. Across the board, having listened to everyone and read the submissions, it is so obvious that, across this whole topic, what victims are told will happen across various different interactions with the organisations they are dealing with and what actually transpires in these events leaves a lot to be desired. It is a common theme across all society. We were in here before talking about reform of civil legal aid. I am not going to rehash it because it is fairly obvious. I was not really that impressed by the Minister's contribution when we questioned him on the requirements for resources. That is something we might return to because the gap is colossal.

Ms Loftus's submission is excellent, analytical, in detail and has strong recommendations. The flow of it is very impressive as regards how it was put together. Chair, may I suggest that we as a committee agree to write to the Commissioner to say that he should meet Ms Loftus?

We can do that.

Obviously, there is a process and we understand that. However, in principle, he should write back, I hope, and say that he will do it. The timeline of when that happens may be another thing.

Has Ms Loftus met the current Minister for justice?

Yes.

If that needs to happen again subsequently through all this process, we might recommend that too.

I am interested in what Ms Loftus said earlier about the disclosures. In my experience, protective disclosures per se, across a lot of organisations, but particularly in An Garda Síochána, are not being handled satisfactorily. I do not want to repeat any of the questions that have been asked previously but Ms Loftus might elaborate a little on how that was dealt with and how it came to be put out there so publicly.

I made a protected disclosure in 2020 about the entire handling of my case and my experience up to that point. Initially, I believed it was being handled correctly and I do think that Fiosrú did the best it could possibly do. However, the current protected disclosures legislation is so perfectly designed that, when it runs in tandem with a criminal case, neither will progress and one will continuously derail the other. That is what happened in my case. Fiosrú tried its very best but the criminal case derailed it at every opportunity. It was a judge who made an order that the protected disclosure be disclosed to the defence. I know Fiosrú did not just hand it over. I do think it has done everything it can do with it. The effect of that legislation is unfortunate. I do not know if it is an error in the legislation or if it was such a clever design to ensure that there could never be a protected closure where there is a criminal element in it running in tandem at the same time.

That is a critically important point. That is why I asked the question. I have seen this happen in other ways but there is particular sensitivity in this case and there is obviously a process weakness or legislative weakness. I am not qualified at this time to say which but it might be something we as a committee could look at because it is either process or legislative. I would suspect it is process but I also have my doubts.

I acknowledge my party colleague Deputy Bacik, who submitted questions on some of the data that has come out about the 12 investigations, eight of which were public complaints and four were internal referrals. There are 23 investigations where a garda is alleged to have failed in how they dealt with reports. Does Ms Loftus believe this unit that has been put in place in Fiosrú would have been put in place without her case?

No, absolutely not, and probably through no fault of Fiosrú. It told me it was established after my case. I am not fully sure about its funding or how it works but I know it was given additional resources to allow this. I saw those numbers. There is no doubt in my mind those numbers will rise sharply. It is unfortunate. I have left An Garda Síochána, so I can sit here and speak and have no fear of internal repercussions in my job at this time but I know that Garda members at the moment find it very difficult, having seen the way I was treated and all I went through. It is very difficult for them to stand up and speak out right now.

It is obvious the functions of this unit need to be not advertised but communicated in a way. At the end of the day, no matter how much communication happens, it is experience and watching how other cases have been dealt with that will give people more confidence to come forward. It does not matter if it is advertised all over. Gardaí know what is going on in their own organisation. They know what units are available and the processes but if they see what happened to Ms Loftus, all the advertising of the unit in the world will not impact as much as it should.

I would like to say to those members if any of them are listening that change is not going to happen unless we all continue to stand up.

Exactly. Fair play. I was very much taken by what Ms Loftus said about not wanting an apology. I really admire that point. It is action that is really required. As regards action, there is an issue now, whether it is process or legislative, in relation to protected disclosure. We know this unit is up in Fiosrú. Personally I believe that will transpire. Are there any other actions Ms Loftus would like to see whereby An Garda Síochána could move quickly?

An immediate point that needs addressing, which Ms Benson touched on, is that when a barring order or any type of family law order is breached, there should always be a corresponding arrest but there is not. That is not happening at the moment. There are copious breaches before someone is arrested. It would have an immediate effect if every single breach had a corresponding arrest.

I thank all of our contributors for their contributions and opening statements. I commend everyone on being as open, honest and transparent as they have been. I will go back to Ms Loftus on one issue. A good, broad range of questions have been asked. The line "I had unauthorised welfare checks carried out on my children" is one that stuck out to me. Will Ms Loftus explain that?

I imagine this was strategically planned because I have since remarried and I am extremely happy. I met a really good man but on the weekend of my hen party, I went away for a big celebration. I came home on the Sunday evening and I knew as soon as I came in that something was wrong. My fiancé at that time told me he had been bombarded over the weekend - I imagine it was strategically planned - with gardaí from the local station doing checks on the kids and their welfare. I know as a former member of An Garda Síochána that there are proper procedures in place. You do not just take a phone call to a station where someone says there are issues about some kids and act on it. That is not how welfare checks are conducted. In this case, the irony of it was that I had come back from my hen party - I had been away for two nights - and at no point had anyone called me, as the mother of those kids, contacted me or ever after that asked me or spoken to me about the welfare of my kids. Instead, it was my fiancé who was harassed. Those welfare checks were completely and utterly unauthorised. The very fact that no one ever followed up with the mother of those children speaks volumes in itself.

I thank Ms Loftus very much for sharing that information with us. It is not the first time we have had files before us or heard stories involving other agencies. There are processes and procedures around all of this, and if there is a welfare issue, that is a role for Tusla. An Garda Síochána should not take it upon itself. We all have memories of the Maurice McCabe story and everything else like that. It shows that we can speak to the vulnerability of children and the core essence of what we are trying to protect when people are at their most vulnerable, be they men or women.

That is where I will come to Mr. Kelly. It is not always women who experience those unauthorised welfare checks. Will he elaborate on that point?

The experience for men is very different. In the vast majority of cases, males are the perpetrators, which makes our job even more difficult. It actually deters men from coming forward because everybody is aware of that. The experience for men is extremely difficult. For instance, if a man experiences domestic abuse, wants to get out and seeks legal advice - this is what they report to us - a lot of the time solicitors tell them to stay in the home and not leave. They tell them that, whatever they do, they should not leave the home because if they do, it will get much more difficult for them to get custody of their children or access rights. They are probably right in giving that advice because the reality will be very difficult if they leave. The whole system does not support men leaving. They can become easy targets and sometimes the men who report to us say the more they report something happening, which is not very often, people think there is no smoke without fire and wonder if that is really what is happening. The disbelief stops men from coming forward to us.

I will go back to Ms Loftus; I just wanted to give her a moment. Even if a welfare check is unauthorised, surely it is documented within An Garda Síochána. Did Ms Loftus ask any questions about that? I do not know if she can comment here. What answers did she receive in relation to the gardaí who had visited her home to carry out the welfare checks? On what basis did they carry out that welfare check?

That particular incident was included in my protected disclosure because I know it happened and my children know it happened because the gardaí arrived into the house to inspect them, but no one in An Garda Síochána has ever spoken to me about it. This was my local Garda station. No one has ever come to me about it or explained to me why it happened but I know Fiosrú is looking into it and it is part of the disclosure, albeit a disclosure that can longer be impartially investigated.

I thank Ms Loftus and everyone else for being here today. I thank Ms Loftus for sharing her experience with us. Looking back, what was the key moment for her when she felt the system let her down the most? I know there might have been myriad failures, but when did she realise the system she served in was not serving her?

I had a lot of hurdles to get it before the Criminal Court. It was before the Circuit Court - the trial - and there were two charges brought before the court, a threat to kill and coercion, with both to proceed on indictment. I had many, many hurdles, as we have touched on today, to get to that point. I falsely believed that justice would prevail there then, because we were now before a Circuit Court judge and potentially a jury. Within that court system, after those articles appeared in the paper, he applied for a gagging order and it was granted with absolutely no legal basis whatsoever. It should very much be viewed as a privilege awarded to him as a member of An Garda Síochána. I know that the legal team for media outlets had to go in and fight to get that gagging order removed. Justice is supposed and enshrined in law to proceed in public. The legal team had to fight for my case to proceed in public.

The real turning point for me was when I had to attend a deposition hearing at some point throughout the six years. I attended in Dublin and the senior counsel for the State who was presenting the case was, in my view, at that point making very minor mistakes in presenting the case, and it did not sit easy with me. I just left that day, had a gut feeling that something was not right here, this was not right. When I did my own investigation, it was brought to my attention that that senior counsel had worked on very high-profile drug cases with the perpetrator and they knew each other quite well. When I brought it to the attention of the DPP's office, I first was in complete disbelief. I looked up the protocol for when this happens. The DPP's own website says that, when this happens, at a very minimum I should have been assured there was no conflict of interest. That never happened. I was never made aware of it. When I did contact the DPP's office, within minutes of my email, she removed herself from my case as she just coincidentally realised at that moment in time that she double-booked herself for the trial. That was the moment for me that I felt like there was someone going to great lengths to ensure that this case did not get justice, did not come out into the public forum, and that my experience would never be heard.

Just going back there, it was an interesting point when Ms Loftus said that it was a privilege afforded to the gardaí by the court system that the gagging order was permitted. Can she just explain that a bit further? Is that something she would have seen during her time in An Garda Síochána?

No, it was not. I think in my specific case he was awarded this privilege purely on the basis that he was a member of An Garda Síochána. I think if it was any other member of the public who had been in his position, I do not believe they would have got it. Having said that, when that application was made, the State agreed to that application and it was never defended. I cannot blame a judge for this. The judge granted an application put before it that the State agreed to. I know it was done on the basis that he was a member of An Garda Síochána. There was no legal basis for that order.

If Ms Loftus could change one part of the justice system that would lead to better protection for victims, what would she change, and why that change?

I would change the family law in camera rule. I think it has a detrimental impact on victims of domestic violence and children. It is no longer serving its purpose before the courts.

Having served as a member of An Garda Síochána, what would Ms Loftus see as a victim-centred response from An Garda Síochána? How should that look and how does she feel things could have been dealt with and handled better in her own case and with things that she may have seen in her own time? Really, I am asking about a victim-centred approach to administering justice.

I think when a victim enters a Garda station and they disclose an offence that just happened, I too often see that members are taking a statement for that one thing that they came into the station for and it is not capturing an entire pattern of behaviour. You could have someone who is presenting with a section 2 assault, but a statement should be taken in every instance - that is not happening - covering from the day that relationship started. We have the offence of coercive control, which was brought into legislation in 2018. Currently, the way that statements are being taken by the Garda is never going to capture coercive control because fully rounded statements are not being taken. That goes directly back to the numbers I spoke about of 60,000 complaints last year stemming from coercive control, and two getting a conviction for it. That is a really worrying number and someone really needs to sit down and have a serious look at it.

In regards to a victim-centred response, as a member of An Garda Síochána, I believe when the perpetrator is a garda, at the moment something is disclosed about them being an abuser, provision should be put in place whereby they cannot further abuse the person by using their State powers to control them. At certain times in my situation, there was a patrol car outside the door and a firearm around his hip. Who do you call in that situation?

Understood. I think Ms Loftus is absolutely right - 60,000 complaints and two convictions would leave a lot to be desired in any organisation.

I am conscious that I am out of time. I thank Ms Loftus very much.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in and giving their various statements. I think the more powerful statement is coming from Ms Loftus today, with all the various shortcomings and failures of An Garda Síochána in respect of how she was treated. Earlier, she mentioned the in camera rule twice. I am really taken by what she said in respect of that. I am a little bit concerned on another level in relation to it. On first principles, justice should always be done but it needs to be seen to be done. I agree with what Ms Loftus says to a large extent but I have certain concerns about it. One of the things I would have seen over the years is victims of domestic violence saying they do not want to go into court if the courtroom is full of people because they would be embarrassed about that. I do have a little bit of a concern about that. Maybe Ms Loftus would explain a little bit better what she sees happening were that rule removed. It is a big, bold step in family law to remove the in camera rule. How would she see it unfolding if it was changed?

I absolutely agree. When I went into the courts that very first day to get a barring order, if that courtroom was full, I probably would have walked back out again. I agree that it is very daunting thing to do. When I say the in camera rule should be removed, I suppose it should always be removed in the interest of justice. We always have to weigh up the better of two evils. You can still have an in camera rule. You can still remove the in camera rule but have other provisions in place whereby a victim does not have to stand in a family law court and present her entire private life and intimate details to an entire courtroom. Media reporting could be anonymised. There are plenty of ways to work around that. We have to look at whether the rule is hindering justice or aiding justice. Right now, it is hindering it. To leave it as it is is doing more damage than good.

Ms Benson has another point to add to that.

I will try to be brief. A full review or report was undertaken by the UCC school of law on behalf of the Department of justice into the in camera rule. There is a broad consensus that the current system is opaque and secretive, and wholly inconsistently applied. I think there is a way through using the recommendations of that report that would transform it into a system that changed secrecy to respecting privacy and made the system more transparent rather than opaque. Reform is crucial but there is also a pathway there. I have made inquiries with the Department of justice as to the recommendations being attended to. I believe that the EU Presidency, which I recently said was an opportunity, is also becoming a serious hindrance in terms of capacity to move on these. Dr. Aisling Parkes and her colleagues in the UCC school of law have set out some really concrete ways to ensure that people are not being gagged or silenced, sometimes even from telling their families what is going on.

Would it be an option for a victim of domestic violence going to the District Court to retain the in camera rule as a choice?

Speaking for Women's Aid, there is a need for radical reform. It is not necessarily a case of removing it because, unfortunately, there will be someone who will say they will not go near it in that case. There could be transformative reform and clarity, because there is an misapplication across various District Courts. Some people are given permission to tell their school, for example, that there is an order in place and there is no access while others are told they cannot do so. This is a matter of safety and risk. There used to be consistent reporting but it is now the child law reporting project bringing it back into the system. Implementation of the Family Courts Act would be very important.

Does Men's Aid have anything to add to this? Is there a different perspective?

We have the same issues with it as Women's Aid and we support everything Ms Benson has said.

Ms Loftus has done the State a great service in what she has said and done and I really appreciate it.

Mention was made of the manosphere, online platforms, the lack of accountability and all of that aspect of it. This is very important from a cultural point of view. Does anybody have a vision of what platform accountability might look like, particularly given the opportunity coming up in terms of the EU Presidency?

I always have something to say about it but I am conscious that my colleagues in Safe Ireland and others may wish to speak.

It is a huge issue, even when it comes to enforcement of legislation. We have spoken about legislation being in place and issues regarding enforcement, and Coco's Law highlights one of those issues. Our position in Safe Ireland is that there needs to be a wider approach. We fully support the new amendments and Bills coming through but the platforms should be held fully to account for what they really are, which, in our opinion, is publishers. If they were accounted for as publishers, there would be a wider scale of regulation that would apply to them. Off the top of my head, defamation law could come in, whereas it is not in play otherwise. There would be greater scope for existing legislation to look into this and enforce it with regard to publishers. It seems that one of the barriers to enforcement is that these publishers can withhold information. Information sharing in An Garda Síochána regarding enforcement is also an issue. Our position is that the social media platforms should be positioned as publishers.

I am conscious of the depth and breadth of the issues and it is impossible to deal with them sufficiently in the time we have. I thank Ms Reilly for being here. She mentioned in her opening statement the need for bail reform regarding issues and breaches of domestic violence in particular, as well as domestic orders or protection orders. She runs a podcast on which she speaks to people who have experience in terms of service delivery, victims and survivors. Will she outline to the committee what she sees as the current issues with bail and what legislative or other measures are needed to address them?

The way it was explained to me originally when a couple of people came to me about it was that, in a job, people are given a verbal warning, a written warning, and then they are sacked. That is not the case when it comes to people's safety. Bail conditions meet legal requirements but they do not always reflect the lived reality of the victims. Many victims continue to feel unsafe while cases are ongoing, leaving them managing fear and uncertainty in their daily lives. The recommendations are that greater consideration must be given for real-life risk and victim safety when bail is granted or reviewed to ensure protection is experienced in reality and not only in legal terms. People who abuse do not necessarily follow the law. Why gamble with people's safety and lives by giving perpetrators bail? This is the issue that comes up time and time again. It puts people's lives in greater danger rather than making them feel in any way safer.

I thank Ms Reilly. In her opening statement, Dr. O'Keeffe spoke about the importance of building strong evidence in this area. Where are the data gaps at present and what would be required to fill them? What research is missing that would allow us to make some of the changes that are needed?

A big piece of research that is missing but is planned is the domestic violence survey that will be undertaken by the Central Statistics Office, CSO. There will be fieldwork this year and it will go into the field next year. It has been some time since we have had nationally representative survey data on the incidence of domestic violence and all of the issues that have been discussed here. It is also about understanding what the levels of under-reporting look like. Since the survey on sexual violence was published, we have known that we have a huge issue with under-reporting. From our perspective, it means we really need to build service capacity to be able to respond to an awful lot of unmet need.

We are looking at gaps in this area. Deputy Brabazon asked about online harms and the pervasiveness and degree to which they impact the population, and this is another area we are looking at. We have a commitment this year for Cuan to do work on harmful pornography and to look at a literacy strategy on this and what interventions are needed, particularly in terms of parents who are concerned about their children's exposure to it. In order to do this work, there are clear gaps in terms of what kinds of intervention or support will work. The sexual violence survey published in 2022 is a huge resource for us in terms of understanding prevalence, under-reporting and service need where people go. It is a benchmark for what improvements need to look like in the years to come.

I thank Dr. O'Keeffe. My next question is for Mr. Kelly of Men's Aid. From the testimony that the committee hears all of the time, it is clear that, as he has said, the vast majority of perpetrators are men, but there are other men who are victims of abuse. In terms of the services he provides, is demand increasing? Is there a greater willingness among men to approach or contact the organisation for assistance?

Demand is steadily increasing but it is still small. What this tells us is that it is hidden. Men do not come forward and this is an issue. When they do come forward to us and make the call to our helpline, we always ask them how they got there and why now. They always say that the biggest barriers are shame, embarrassment and the fear of not being believed.

While the demand for the service is definitely increasing, it is still small. In comparison to Women's Aid, it is absolutely tiny, for all the reasons I have said. What this says to me is that the problem is hidden in our society and men just do not come forward. A lot of guys do not recognise the abuse as abuse, so education is also important.

I thank Mr. Kelly. My next question is for Safe Ireland. As was mentioned by other members, we have had countless conversations about the civil legal aid system, including engagement with the Minister and the Department. There seems to be a blockage and refusal to accept what everybody who has an interaction with the civil legal aid system tells us, which is that there is a crisis that impacts victims of domestic violence in particular and their access to the courts. Is there still a regional disparity? Are there some areas where some victims get access to the legal supports they need and, more importantly from the committee's perspective, are there still black holes and parts of the country where people do not get the legal services they are entitled to?

Overall, across the domestic violence services we support, the issues are systemic and nationwide. There are significant issues regarding access to legal aid and even access to solicitors if legal aid has been granted. As identified recently to the committee, there are areas of legal aid deserts, so to speak. There are certain areas where there are no solicitors covering and an individual may have to look at another county to potentially get support.

The access issue is across the country. There are some areas, usually more rural areas, where it is an issue but it is something that needs to be looked at across the board for DSGBV survivors. It was kind of touched upon at that recent committee as well. There are solutions there. There are ways to aid in fixing the issue. With regard to DSGBV survivors, it is quite a unique area within civil law. The risk is live. The safety risk is ongoing. Things like the merits test should not be applicable.

Eligibility criteria have mentioned by the Department of justice before and the possibility of looking at changing the threshold there but when we look at the nature of coercive control and economic abuse, there should not be a threshold for those individuals because in many instances, a person may look on paper as if they have income and meet the threshold but in reality, they do not because they do not have access to it. There are pockets of solutions there and it is about looking at them and taking an interest in it.

I thank Dr. O'Shea. We have two non-members of the committee, Senators McCormack and Clonan, who have been here throughout the meeting. I propose that we allow them each five minutes for interactions and then members can indicate if they want to come in for a second round so I can try to assess how much time we can allow. Senator McCormack has five minutes.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee for allowing me this time. I thank everybody for coming in and the invaluable service they do in our country. I thank Lauren and Margaret so much. I have listened to some of Lauren's podcasts and she is incredible for speaking out in the way she does. It is fantastic. I have come to know Margaret over the past few months and she is one of the most incredible humans for using her voice in a way so many were not able to do. I thank her because the service she is providing to victims who will come after her will never ever be forgotten.

I have so many questions from listening to everything here. I work closely with a lot of domestic violence victims. We have a group in Laois, Victims' Voices, who do fantastic work. They are survivors of abuse and have been instrumental in working on legislation with Deputy Carthy on the civil protection orders Bill to ensure a protection order can be put in place at the time of sentencing rather than having to go back and retraumatise by going through it after. That is going through the stages of the House at the minute. Hopefully, it will go through.

What has been mentioned here by every one of the witnesses here again today and what I find commonly coming up is that victims are not heard, not believed, they are silenced and feel trapped. I think of the horrific experience that Margaret went through and the 58 times in six years this was brought to court. There are so many flaws and so many areas we could look at. When someone would ring me and they are in that situation, our advice on the first point of contact is that they need to go the local gardaí or the local domestic abuse service. In a bad situation, it would have to be to the local gardaí. Margaret mentioned that when someone presents in a Garda station and they make a statement - they may not even make a full statement - it then goes to the superintendent in the station. They have a decision on whether to do anything with this. There have been 60,000 or 65,000 incidents reported and two convictions. Is that correct?

There have been two for coercive control out of 25 prosecutions.

My God. That is absolutely shameful. What happens if these cases go the superintendent? What happens after that? If they are just there and he or she decides I am not doing anything with this, what happens in that situation for that victim?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. That goes back with no direction, no charges and no recommendations and that file is signed off on the system as closed, end of story.

Wow. I am sure Ms Benson could talk about how long it takes for someone to get the courage to be able to go forward to the Garda. I definitely hear the fear and it takes a lot of coaxing. We are encouraging people to trust the law and this is what happens.

It is important to say that whether it is an Garda Síochána or a specialist support service, only a tiny minority will ever actually reach us. We have work to do across the board to build trust and confidence and help people see their experience is one that is not their fault and the shame is not with them. Shame is embedded but it also crucially needs to be understood that it is a specific weapon, particularly for domestic violence but also for sexual violence victims.

That 65,000 figure for domestic violence calls is the tip of the iceberg. Our tens of thousands figure is only the tip of the iceberg. The whole of society is supporting and perpetuating that shame and stigma. To paraphrase Gisèle Pelicot, the shame is being directed completely in the wrong direction. It has to be towards perpetrators but zero tolerance as a concept is one whereby some people will still continue to perpetuate harm. Zero tolerance has to be everybody else saying that is completely unacceptable. That is with the gardaí, society, employers and across the board.

That has to start at the beginning with training. I know I am out of time and I will not give out. I have just one quick question. We need a refuge in Laois. We are one of the few counties, along with Monaghan, which does not have one. Could I get an update?

We are delighted that we have found an AHB partner as a service provider in Laois. The planning process is actually commencing. Unfortunately, there was a previous AHB planning partner in Laois but that did not work out. That really delayed the process but it is up and running now. We are really enthusiastic and the local stakeholder group is in place. It is going well.

We just met again yesterday.

That is great news.

It is all happening. We need to get a memorandum of understanding together with the two partners and progressing it with the local authority.

That was worth the Senator's additional time. I call Senator Clonan and thank him for being here.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee members for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I thank all of the witnesses for being here and for all of the work they do in Women's Aid, Men's Aid and Safe Ireland. The work is very important and I thank my colleague Deputy Conway-Walsh for supporting Margaret. Thankfully, I have not experienced domestic violence myself or in my family of origin. I am aware of it in my extended family but I have not experienced it directly.

We have some things in common. As a member of a uniformed service and a serving officer, I catalogued the systemic and systematic gender-based violence and sexual violence against my female colleagues. That led to instant reprisal. I note that dynamic in Margaret's experience. There was reprisal from colleagues, friends, people I served overseas with and people I trained with and classmates. That reprisal consisted of physical assault, threats of criminal prosecution - they alleged I had breached the Official Secrets Act - and the issuing of press statements. They mobilised the resources of the State to engage in the reprisal.

One of the things I found particularly shocking at the time was some of the most enthusiastic participants in that reprisal were promoted. Some of them are in very senior positions today. Some of the enthusiastic participants in the reprisal were female colleagues. Was that an experience Margaret shared?

My next question is on the organisational response. They mobilise State resources. Earlier Ms Loftus said that hundreds of thousands of euros was invested in push-back and gaslighting. What about all the good people, our friends and colleagues? Still to this day, the reprisal has followed me in here and it was re-animated when the Women of Honour came forward. In the latest round of reprisal, my daughter has been targeted. She is 21 years and she was 19 at the time when the independent review group produced a report.

My next questions are for all of the witnesses. Perpetrators are one thing. Why do all the good people collaborate, extend and join the reprisal? What does that say about us?

In my experience the people who speak up about gender-based violence or domestic violence very often experience reprisal. In Ireland, they almost universally experience reprisal. Is that a uniquely Irish phenomenon or is it an international phenomenon?

The Senator has asked some nice and simple questions. Perhaps Ms Loftus will start.

I will touch on the universal female experience. Yes, absolutely. The person who was responsible for all of my pay being stopped and all that was a female. A big, massive boys club did not come down on top of me. It was both male and female.

On the question about good people, in my case a small number of bad people made my life really difficult. The thing is that when a small number of bad people work in an organisation like An Garda Síochána and they have unlimited resources at their fingertips that go unchecked, they can cause detrimental damage to a person. They do not need large numbers to back them up. They do not need large numbers to help them. A small number of people can actually have a huge impact.

Largely, An Garda Síochána is made up of really good people who want to do the very best that they can do and deliver as good a service as they possibly can. They do not want to sit in patrol cars with perpetrators of domestic violence. They go into work and they do their best. They may see someone beside them who has just walked out of a family law court after getting a barring order but they have to go and work with these people and answer domestic violence calls with these people. It is a very small number, in my case, who helped him cause a maximum impact on my life.

Everybody is socialised in the same patriarchal system and the same capitalist system. We are all institutionalised to a certain extent. Part of it is that perpetrators are frighteningly normal. They are not some bogeyman or outliers. They will be a friend, brother or colleague and that creates a terrible incongruence. Institutions invest heavily in protecting themselves and rely on the people within them to do that. It takes great courage to speak out. Everything that we have done on protected disclosures shows just how hard it is to be the outlier. Within that, people will either collude or remain silent because they are frightened themselves. The situation is complicated but it is not unique to Ireland.

I thank both of the witnesses because I know, from my own personal experience, that with talking about these things there is an element of re-traumatising and there is a cost to be paid.

On the question of forgiveness and apologies, I was on a radio panel with Colm O'Gorman, which is on the public record. Colm O'Gorman was asked: "Do you forgive the perpetrator who did what he did to you?" Mr. O'Gorman gave a very useful answer. He said: "It is not up to me to forgive him or to accept his apology; he has to forgive himself." It is up to the people who did all of this to forgive themselves but, unfortunately, we know that that will never happen because they will then have to accept who they are.

I forgive the Senator for going over time. Time is limited and I remind members to stay on as we have to discuss some private business. Deputies Butterly, Gannon and Conway-Walsh, and Senator Kelleher have indicated a wish to speak. They have three minutes in which to ask short questions and please allow time for a response.

My first question is for Ms Loftus. Have the small number who facilitated her husband been investigated or suffered any consequences as a result?

They are all part of the protected disclosure I made that got disclosed so not that I know of and I cannot imagine that it can be fully investigated at this point.

Ms Reilly anticipated one of my questions on the in camera rule. What is her opinion of the rule?

I completely agree. It should be a choice of case by case if the person wants to share his or her story. From what I have seen, sharing a story can inspire someone else to come forward. Some of the people who have listened to my podcast have reached to me and said that they did not know they were being abused until they listened to my podcast. The less we speak about it, and the less we are allowed to speak about it, the more we protect what is actually going on. Especially within what I have seen, the less we speak about it, the more the situation will never change. It is the lived experiences that people go through that really only get it and a lot of people will never get it. If people can speak, and are given the opportunity to speak, then there must be no barriers. It is already hard enough to speak without the barriers that are put in place by the justice system and stuff like that. It is fear and further fear for them. It would definitely help if that was not there and they had the option.

I have questions for Mr. Kelly. The key element is that all men and women are vulnerable from the beginning, right through the process and even after the process has concluded. The LGBTQIA community seems to have a particular vulnerability. Recently I attended some talks where I heard about chemsex parties and fear. If it is fearful for heterosexual men to leave a relationship and talk, I gather that it is virtually impossible to persuade people to come forward when they are in other situations. Can Mr. Kelly shed light on the matter?

I agree with the Deputy. As I said earlier, in general very few men come forward. That tells me that there is a problem that is hidden. Of those men, even fewer would be from other communities. We do not ask questions and that is a difficulty. We allow people to call us and disclose. We may or may not be talking to somebody from that particular community or not. We know from when we provide training to those communities that they feel an additional barrier to coming out and explaining because there could be other consequences in their lives for coming forward and revealing their life.

The clerk to the committee has asked me to request members keep their comments shorter than the allocated time, if at all possible. Next is Deputy Gannon who will be followed by Deputy Conway-Walsh.

I have a question for Dr. O'Keeffe. A couple of months ago a group of women gave a presentation in the audiovisual room who were quite concerned that a policy had developed that there would period of 12 weeks for a woman who enters emergency accommodation. Is that the case?

No, that is not the case. For a long period, the services have said that the average length of stay that they typically facilitate is about three months and it is about six months in "safe homes". The services risk assess on an individual case-by-case basis, and a family basis. The period goes up or down depending on the needs of the family.

Monitoring is one of the actions was delayed within the implementation plan because we had hoped to have it done by the end of last year. By quarter 1 of this year, we finished a big monitoring piece of work with all of the services to understand the cost of services, the actual level of provision and what is being delivered right across the country. The statistics for DV refuge provision show the following. Last year, the services report showed that 1,655 households were accommodated in DV, the average length of stay is six weeks, 37% of people stay for less than a week and 69% for less than six weeks. It is a slightly longer period within safe homes.

About 10% stay for between four and six months, 3% stay for up to 12 months and 1% stay longer than 12 months. As you get to the tail end of that, you get into issues as to how to support people to move on with follow-on accommodation. There is a lot of complexity there but there is a good deal of work happening.

Safe Ireland proposes a stand-alone domestic violence offence modelled on the Scottish legislation that was introduced in 2018. Eight years on from the introduction of that legislation, what measurable differences has it made?

There have been evaluations, which is great to see. In looking at any legislation from abroad and whether to translate it here, we have to look at what already exists in Ireland. Coercive control is an offence under the Domestic Violence Act and the 2023 Act deals with stalking, harassment and so on. However, there is a gap as regards tackling risk as it arises. Domestic violence is different from other forms of criminality. It happens in private and escalates over time. There are potential opportunities to intervene earlier but not through legislative or criminal means. The Scottish legislation contains really strong provisions in respect of early intervention. It recognises various forms of abuse as domestic abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse and psychological abuse. It also has an objective element to it. The test is whether a reasonable person would believe that a particular individual is experiencing domestic abuse. It also highlights the impact on children. There have been various actions across different Departments and legislation that have tried to recognise the position of children but they are lacking. The zero tolerance strategy correctly identified children as victims in their own right but that has not been translated into legislation. The Scottish legislation does include that. Where a child is involved or even present-----

I am very sorry but I am going to have cut across Dr. O'Shea. Perhaps she would be in a position to provide a written note on that matter.

Yes.

The committee would be very grateful for that.

I have two very brief questions for Ms Loftus. Is the perpetrator of the crime against her a member of An Garda Síochána now?

Yes. He is still a member.

When did he plead guilty?

It was before Easter last year, in April or May of 2025.

He is still a member of An Garda Síochána.

Yes.

That speaks for itself. Does Ms Loftus believe that children are being put in danger right here and right now because they are instructed to meet the perpetrators of domestic violence against them or against their other parent?

In my experience and, I am sure, the experience of loads of other people, because of the in camera rule and all of the complexities around it, somebody can deny all abuse in a family law court while admitting guilt in a criminal court and entering a plea deal with the DPP. I will let someone else elaborate.

The research undertaken by Trinity College Dublin and the UCC school of law that we published is the first ever 360° examination of adult and child victim-survivors in custody and access proceedings. It showed that the system categorically constitutes secondary victimisation and a failure to properly vindicate the voice of the child. It also shows the report system on the welfare of the child may potentially breach children's constitutional rights. That is because domestic violence is endemic in the system but is not seen as such. It is as if domestic violence is just in one place but, if there is domestic violence, it shows up in proceedings on custody, access, maintenance, divorce and separation and every other proceeding. The system is not yet geared to that so the answer is "Yes". I will happily share the research with the Deputy.

You could say there are State-facilitated dangers to children.

The system is failing to effectively recognise risk, both to adults and children, specifically in custody and access proceedings.

I would just like to finish off by thanking all of the witnesses for the enormous role they have played in imparting their expertise and experience and in answering our questions. Our job is to get things right and to rectify systemic failures. In saying that, I am fully aware of the point Ms Loftus made, which is that, before any legislation is introduced, we must give consideration to how it will be enforced. That is something we are going to have to consider very carefully. I thank the witnesses for their time. I will not go any further. I really appreciate the contributions the witnesses have made. I feel much better informed from having listened to them.

I will not ask any further questions, although there are many that could be asked. I propose that we publish the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I sincerely thank Cuan. This committee will hold its feet to the fire as much as it will commend it on the work it is doing. I wish the organisation well in its ambitious programme of work. I also thank Safe Ireland for the work it is doing. Men's Aid and Women's Aid provide invaluable services. Women's Aid has provided services to tens of thousands of people over a long period of time. This committee constantly hears reference to the support the organisations have provided to victims and survivors.

At the very outset, when the committee was first established, we agreed that we would try to ensure that we always heard about people's real-life experiences when we were discussing issues, regardless of the area involved. Today was another vindication that it was the right approach for the committee to take. I thank Ms Reilly for the work she is doing with her podcast. I hope all of our other guests will indulge me as I single out Margaret Loftus for what she has done, for the bravery she has shown, for her testimony here today and for the changes in the law and in the processes undertaken by the State that I believe will be made because of what she has done. We do not usually do this but I ask the members to give Ms Loftus a round of applause to show our appreciation.

I again thank Ms Loftus and the other witnesses. The committee will now go into private session for a brief meeting to deal with housekeeping matters.