new bill criminalising the purchase of sex

[JayM93]

Unfortunately, the amended Bill that will ultimately be the Act removes the three month commencement period and now the present bill as passed by both houses provides that all Section(s) will be commenced at the Ministers discretion. The President upon signing the Bill will be the critical day. On balance, the Bill will take legal effect that day as I struggle to see the Minister commencing it at a later stage after the short title has been amended.

[BB28]

Bill was signed today by the president into law. See http://www.president.ie/en/the-presi...17-legislation

[Petros]

i reckon a lot of the ladies will disappear from here, wouldnt blame them either, the cops will no doubt go on a rampage raiding places, easy pickings, easy money in fines. much easier that targeting the drug lords etc.

I'd doubt it! Where are they suddenly going to got all the resources to operate all the stakeouts needed to catch people? Don't forget — they have to find the money from somewhere to pay for the recent pay deal struck with the Guards. Arresting punters won't help with that — hiding in ditches with speed guns would be far more effective there.

Then there is the issue of how do they prove someone had paid for sex. OK, the law also says someone is guilty even if they only promise to pay for sex — I can see lawyers having a field day with that. The Guards need proof beyond reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. This takes time and resourses — two things they don't have at the moment.

[JayM93]

Then there is the issue of how do they prove someone had paid for sex. OK, the law also says someone is guilty even if they only promise to pay for sex — I can see lawyers having a field day with that. The Guards need proof beyond reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. This takes time and resourses — two things they don't have at the moment.

Well, it's a strict liability offence so not an onerous task to be fair. It will be akin to that of a road traffic offence and similar. It's an offence that will be dealt with by the District Court, more so the humour of the judge than the adducement of evidence. There is no trial, jury, etc. Promising isn't that ambigious either from a legal pov however if you read the bill, the phrase "consideration" is fascinating. That is a catch all, monetary or otherwise. I do think it's telling that the Bill doesn't include the words "in a private place" or similar words to the effect as if you read the Bill in conjunction with the 1993 Act (of which it is an amendement) it may lead one to conclude that it criminalises the buyer in a public place only (i.e. rather than the previous place of just soliciting) however that is just my opinion albeit an informed one.

[The Libertarian]

Well, it's a strict liability offence so not an onerous task to be fair. It will be akin to that of a road traffic offence and similar. It's an offence that will be dealt with by the District Court, more so the humour of the judge than the adducement of evidence. There is no trial, jury, etc. Promising isn't that ambigious either from a legal pov however if you read the bill, the phrase "consideration" is fascinating. That is a catch all, monetary or otherwise. I do think it's telling that the Bill doesn't include the words "in a private place" or similar words to the effect as if you read the Bill in conjunction with the 1993 Act (of which it is an amendement) it may lead one to conclude that it criminalises the buyer in a public place only (i.e. rather than the previous place of just soliciting) however that is just my opinion albeit an informed one.

This insane bill may have more holes in it than Donal McGlinchey ended up with!

[JayM93]

This insane bill may have more holes in it than Donal McGlinchey ended up with!

I would stress may however to avoid the bill being repugnant to the Constitution (40.3) and indeed the ECHR, you would wonder if it was a deliberate omission which of course, may lead to a defence for the buyer.

[The Libertarian]

I would stress may however to avoid the bill being repugnant to the Constitution (40.3) and indeed the ECHR, you would wonder if it was a deliberate omission which of course, may lead to a defence for the buyer.

I strongly believe the main focus of this nutter bill is to make sex workers suffer disproportionately more than punters and as long as it's enforced it will be the case! The same thing has happened in Sweden and Norway! No good can come of this new law, none wrt to consenting adults having sex with each other!

[The Libertarian]

I would stress may however to avoid the bill being repugnant to the Constitution (40.3) and indeed the ECHR, you would wonder if it was a deliberate omission which of course, may lead to a defence for the buyer.

AFAIK, The Coucil for Civil Liberties, which ostensibly were very quite publicaly on the matter, behind the scenes were active in dealing with DOJ Mandarins trying to convince how insane and wrong the relevant part of the bill was, so who knows!

[Barney Rubble]

This insane bill may have more holes in it than Donal McGlinchey ended up with!

Who's Donal ? Any relation of Dominic ?

[The Libertarian]

Who's Donal ? Any relation of Dominic ?

Indeed that's the beaut I meant!