This website was established and is maintained through funding from The Lighthouse Fellowship
​
The Lighthouse Fellowship is a charitable organisation which assists persons with mental health issues negotiate societal challenges
​
The website is currently undergoing revision
​
Contact info@vulnerablewitness.com for any information
Legislation Updates
The Children (Amendment) Bill 2024 is still at a General Scheme stage but in January 2026 a report outlinning submissions on the legislative proposals was published. Aoife Doheny has summarised the report below and links to the General Scheme and the report are enclosed here.
Summary of Report on
The Children (Amendment) Bill 2024
Aoife Doheny
​
This report was produced by the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, chaired by Matt McCarthy of Sinn Fein and attended by representatives from Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Social Democrats, Labour and Independents.
Recommendations
The Committee made 18 recommendations, which have been summarised under five broad headings below.
Restorative Justice
First, the Committee recommended the expanded use of restorative justice as a practical alternative to detention. In particular, it noted that family conferences were an underutilised tool in this area and could also be used for strengthening referrals to the Youth Diversion Programme.
Re-integration
Second, the Committee recommended that rehabilitation and reintegration be paramount in decisions weighing detention as an option for convicted young people. It emphasised the need for more community-based social reintegration schemes, advising that children released from detention should receive similar support to children leaving the State care system.
Expansion
Third, the Committee recommended nationwide expansion of two schemes: the bail supervision scheme and the model offered by the Dublin Children’s Court.
Statutory Protections
Fourth, the Committee recommended heightened statutory protections for children convicted of crimes. It supported the requirement that judges provide written reasons for refusing a child’s admission into Youth Diversion Programme. It also recommended that court accompaniment for children, including the use of intermediaries, be placed on a statutory footing. Lastly, it recommended that any adverse incidents or accidents that occur in detention centres be reported to the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA).
Future Improvements
In terms of future directions for improvement, the Committee recommended the establishment of a dedicated youth justice agency. It also recommended that the Department of Justice conduct comparative research on youth justice systems and restorative justice practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Main Issues
Six main topics were discussed in written and oral submissions.
Participants in discussions included statutory bodies, such as the Ombudsman for Children and Law Society, NGOs, including the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), as well as a victim of youth crime.
Deferred sentencing supervision orders
The Committee received suggestions regarding an anomaly in the Children’s Act concerning suspended sentences. Children cannot be handed down a custodial sentence if they reoffend during the suspended time period, since the Act does not provide for reactivating a suspended sentence order. NGOs and the Ombudsman recommended the use of Deferred Sentence Supervision Orders as a solution to this, as it allows for both accountability and flexibility for judges.
Minimum age of criminal responsibility
Stakeholders stressed that a minimum age of 12 is out of line with international and UNCRC standards, and recommended that it be raised to 14. NGOs noted that committing serious crimes at a young age may be indicative of neurological or welfare problem, which was questioned further by the Committee.
Protections for those who ‘age-out’ and increased privacy
Several submissions indicated that protections for children could be extended to people aged 23 or even 25 to account for continued neurological maturation. This would include expansion of Youth Diversion programme.
Bail Supervision Scheme and Youth Diversion Programme.
Oral submissions recommended the nationwide extension of the Bail Supervision Scheme and Youth Diversion Programme, noting that both were very cost-effective. A report conducted of the bail scheme found that there was a 72% reduction in reoffending in the first six months, with no new arrests for 63% of participants.
Some contributors highlighted that this is in contrast to detention, which perpetuates crime rather than reducing it while also increasing children’s suffering. However, other contributors highlighted the need for accountability for serious crimes and public safety.
Oscar (A Pseudonym) v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2025] IECA 278
Summary by Aoife Doheny
Date of judgment: 16th December 2025
Judgment delivered by Kennedy J.
​
Facts
The appellant (aged 15 at the time of the offence) and complainant (aged 12) met and engaged in sexual intercourse after communicating online via Snapchat. The appellant made several video recordings on his phone during the act.
The complainant’s family reported the incident to An Garda Síochána, leading the appellant to be charged under section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (defilement of a child under 17) and s 3 of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act.
​
Issues
The appellant contended that the 2006 Act should be interpreted to mean that a 15-year-old who reasonably believes that the person with whom he has sexual intercourse is 15 years old is not guilty of an offence. The appellant contended that the Act would be unconstitutional if no such interpretation were made, as it necessarily criminalises the appellant’s conduct in making his belief as to the complainant’s age irrelevant.
There was also a separate issue on the grounds of culpable prosecutorial delay.
​
Findings
​​
Delay
The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s arguments on the grounds of delay. In judicial review proceedings, the High Court had found that 2 years and 2 months elapsed between the date of complaint and the charge, which amounted to culpable prosecutorial delay. However, it reiterated the long-established principle that while authorities must make special efforts to ensure speedy trials for young people, culpable prosecutorial delay of itself is insufficient to prohibit a trial.
​
The Court of Appeal noted that there is very high public interest in the prosecution of sexual offences against a child due to the ‘seriousness’ of the crime. Furthermore, this seriousness is not mitigated by the appellant’s belief that the complainant was 15 years old. This belief is entirely subjective, while a determination of seriousness is necessarily an objective examination.
The court emphasised the fact that the child complainant was 12 years old, holding that it is an intrinsically serious offence to have sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old, and also to film the act. In terms of prejudice, it noted that the appellant will retain his anonymity during the proceedings, so the contention of potential prejudice does not apply.
Reasonable mistake
The appellant argued that he should be allowed to avail of the defence of reasonable mistake so as to bring him within the provisions of section 3(8) of the 2006 Act, which in turn provides the defence of consent. The Court rejected this argument.
The defence of reasonable mistake can only be invoked where the complainant was at least 15 years old and was within two years of age of the appellant. Similarly, the defence of consent is only available where the complainant is at least 15 years of age, and actually consented to the sexual activity.
On the facts of this case, neither defence could apply, since the complainant was 12 years old and thus three years younger than the appellant. She legally could not consent to sexual intercourse. The Court noted: “These are conditions precedent to the invocation of the defence [of consent] and are factual matters unrelated to any mental element on the part of an accused person.” [Para 96]
Fresh evidence
Finally, the Court held that no new neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological reports could be introduced on appeal, since judicial review proceedings should be confined to grounds upon which leave was granted. The appellant could not avail of the special grounds outlined in Lynagh v. Mackin [1970] IR 180, since the report could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the High Court hearing.
Information about the training of Intermediaries in Ireland
University of Limerick
UL’s Professional Diploma in Intermediary Studies
'UL’s Professional Diploma in Intermediary Studies is an innovative one-year, part-time, postgraduate programme designed to qualify you for inclusion on the Register of Court Intermediaries. Developed in collaboration with the Department of Justice, it equips you with the skills to facilitate communication for vulnerable witnesses and defendants in legal proceedings.'
​
Recent signficiant cases......
The Court of Appeal case of 'Oscar' v DPP (16th December 2025) examined the constitutionality of s.3 Criminal Law ( Sexual Offences) Act 2006 and the issues regarding the possiblity of mistake in relation to the relevant ages contained in section....
The Supreme Court case of DPP v CC (13th March 2025) has ended the use of reviews as a sentencing provision....
In DPP v AM (2nd May 2025), the Supreme Court restricted the parameters for the disclosure of counselling notes under s.19A Criminal Evidence Act 1992...
The case of DPP v PB (13th March 2025) addressed the issue of anonymity and child defendants who 'age out' during their criminal proceeedings allowing the child to retain their anonymity.....