Survivors of male violence rallying at Dáil to call for ban on counselling notes in trials
Ahead of the debate, therapists and victims of male violence, including campaigner Natasha O'Brien, will stage a demonstration outside Leinster House this afternoon at 3pm in support of the legislation.
The bill has been brought forward by TD Ruth Coppinger.
At the outset of her re-election last year, the Dublin West TD flagged that this would be
one of her priorities for the Dáil term.
Coppinger and campaigners outside the Dáil in April 2025.
Rollingnews.ie
Rollingnews.ie
In the last Government, then-Justice Minister Helen McEntee pledged to outlaw the practice completely, while current Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan has approved plans to significantly restrict their use.
As the law currently stands, a pre-trial disclosure hearing is supposed to take place ahead of a trial to decide if an alleged victim's counselling notes are relevant.
O'Callaghan said this provision in the law has 'not operated as intended'. Last month, he received Government sign-off to amend the law to require that an automatic disclosure hearing take place in all cases and remove the provision that allows for this step to be waived.
Coppinger, however, wants the Government to go even further and ban the use of counselling notes in trials related to certain offences outright.
This move has been supported by a number of counsellors and victims of male violence.
Speaking at a press conference on the issue earlier this year, a number of women spoke of the
trauma attached to having their private counselling notes read out in court.
Advertisement
Sarah Grace, a campaigner who was raped by a stranger who broke into her bedroom in 2019, described how navigating the justice system after the assault was 'the most traumatising and painful ordeal' she has ever had to experience.
'Including the sexual assault itself. And I understand the weight of those words,' she said at the time.
Grace said the 'most cruel blow came not at the hands of the man who violated my body', but at the hands of the justice system.
'A system that allowed the notes of my weekly therapy session, in what I believe to be the sanctity and privacy of a therapy room, to be read by the man who caused the very devastation that I was trying to rebuild myself from,' she said.
Another woman, Paula Doyle, who was raped in a park by her friend's husband, spoke out about how her experience of the Irish justice system in the aftermath of the assault was 'inhumane'.
'At times up to the trial, I even felt I was the one on trial,' Doyle said, referring to the use of her counselling notes.
Doyle described this as a 'personal intrusion' and a 'second violation'.
'My private counselling notes were requested by the DPP five months before our initial trial date. I don't have to go into it, you know what rape is. He took my body that night. He left it like a piece of rubbish in the hedges.
'How perverse is it now that he has taken time and he can read my notes, what I poured into my therapy sessions, my heart and my soul?
'I'm really still not able to put this completely into words, it just felt like such a second violation, but on a much, much deeper level.
'And it's done to this day under the supervision of the Department of Justice…where is the justice in that?,' Doyle asked during the press conference.
The debate in the Dáil is scheduled to take place tonight at 7.20 pm.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Crime by offenders on bail rises 20% as prison overcrowding hits crisis levels
Recorded crimes committed by people already on bail for other offences has jumped by 20% in the last two years. Cork City and Dublin's north inner city show the sharpest rises in urban areas, with a large number of county divisions also experiencing significant increases. Senior sources said the increases were part of a wider "crisis in the criminal justice system", reflected by a severe, and worsening, overcrowding crisis in the country's jails. The latest figures show new records were set on Wednesday, with prison numbers hitting 5,581, more than 900 more that can be accommodated in Irish jails. Consequently, prison overcrowding reached a new high of 120% overcapacity. Cork Prison has experienced one of the worst increases in overcrowding during 2025, and is now 132% over capacity. Prison sources are most concerned about potential violence and security issues at older prisons with small cells, like Mountjoy Prison, and Cloverhill Remand Prison, which has larger cells but with up to four inmates in them. Cloverhill also has a high number of inmates, including homeless people, with serious or severe mental health issues. 'Gardai are doing their job, arresting and prosecuting offenders and the courts — and there have been a large number of extra judges appointed — are doing their job by convicting them or remanding them to prison, but the prisons are overflowing and have no space to hold them,' a senior justice source said. That means those sent to prison are either processed, placed in a holding cell for an hour or whatever, and then released back out. Or, if they have to be held — say it's a serious charge or conviction — other prisoners have to be released, on temporary release. The source added: 'We have reached the stage, and have for a while, where there is a crisis in the criminal justice system.' Prison sources have previously said use of temporary release has already passed its maximum safe usage, with numbers topping 600 on Thursday. In a case reported in the Irish Examiner on Thursday, a man who spat phlegm in a garda's face in Cork was jailed for five months, but was turned away from prison. The man was jailed for five months at Midleton District Court. However, due to overcrowding in Cork prison, he was back out. A second justice source said judges and gardaí knew prisons were full when bail was being considered. The source said: 'But if it's a repeat shoplifter or a homeless guy or an addict constantly causing trouble, what are they going to do on bail? They will continue.' Official figures on the number of crime incidents, where at least one of the suspected offenders was on bail at the time, reveals: 42,603 incidents in 2024, compared to 39,250 in 2023 and 35,478 in 2022 — an increase of 20% in two years; 2,211 incidents in Cork City in 2024, up 31% on 2022 (1,691); 9,718 incidents in Dublin North Central in 2024, up 31% on 2022 (7,397); Meath/Westmeath division saw a 72% increase, from 1,121 to 1,927; Kerry reported a 34% rise, from 565 to 755; Louth/Cavan/Monaghan had a 24% increase, from 1,686 to 2,092. All but two divisions experienced a rise in incidents in the last two years.
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Daniel O'Connell personified the perpetual importance of an independent Bar
On July 27, 1813, in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, Daniel O'Connell rose to defend John Magee, publisher of the Dublin Evening Post, against a charge of criminal libel. His speech that day demonstrated how a skilled barrister could transform an oppressive legal system into an instrument of political change. The case of The King v. John Magee remains one of the most memorable examples of O'Connell's extraordinary ability to use his legal expertise in the service of justice and reform. The charge against Magee arose from his publication of a review criticising the departing Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond. The article condemned Richmond's errors in governing Ireland and compared him to the worst of his predecessors, who were described as 'the profligate unprincipled Westmorland, the cold-hearted and cruel Camden, the artful and treacherous Cornwallis'. More significantly, it challenged the fundamental principle of British rule in Ireland — 'a principle of exclusion, which debars the majority of the people from the enjoyment of those privileges that are possessed by the minority'. This was no ordinary libel case. As O'Connell understood, it was unavoidably a political case, and it demanded a political speech. The prosecution was designed to suppress dissent and maintain the exclusion of Ireland's Catholic majority from political participation. Attorney General William Saurin made this clear in his opening, describing Magee as a 'ruffian' whose purpose was 'to excite [in the minds of the population] hatred against those whom the laws have appointed to rule over them, and prepare them for revolution'. O'Connell faced formidable obstacles. The law of criminal libel was so broad that, as he later observed, 'every letter I ever published could be declared a libel' and the libel law could 'produce a conviction with a proper judge and jury for The Lord's Prayer with due legal inuendoes'. More damaging still was the composition of the jury — hand-picked to ensure conviction. With characteristic boldness, O'Connell confronted this unfairness head-on, telling the jurors: 'Gentlemen, he [the Attorney General] thinks he knows his men; he knows you; many of you signed the no-popery petition... you would not have been summoned on this jury if you had entertained liberal sentiments'. Rather than being cowed by these disadvantages, O'Connell turned them into weapons. He began by meeting Saurin's personal attacks, describing the Attorney General's speech as a 'farrago of helpless absurdity'. When Saurin had stooped to calling Magee a ruffian and comparing him to 'the keeper of a house of ill fame', O'Connell lamented how far Saurin fell below the standards of the great Irish barristers such as Curran and Ponsonby: 'Devoid of taste and of genius, how can he have had memory enough to preserve this original vulgarity — he is, indeed, an object of compassion; and, from my inmost soul, I bestow on him my forgiveness and my bounteous pity'. O'Connell was even able to use Saurin's own words against him. When the Attorney General accused Magee of Jacobinism, O'Connell recalled Saurin's defence of himself against the same charge in 1800, when Saurin, then anti-union, had declared that 'agitation is ... the price necessarily paid for liberty'. O'Connell's response was devastating: 'We have paid the price, gentlemen, and the honest man refuses to give us the goods'. What made O'Connell's defence truly remarkable was how he transformed a hopeless legal case into a powerful platform for political reform. His bold claim: 'the Catholic cause is on its majestic march — its progress is rapid and obvious... We will, we must, be soon emancipated' is electrifying even now. What must it have sounded like in his voice, in that court, in that trial, in those times? His confidence in his legal position was equally striking. When Saurin threatened to crush the Catholic Board, O'Connell declared: 'I am, if not a lawyer, at least a barrister. On this subject, I ought to know something; and I do not hesitate to contradict the Attorney General ... the Catholic Board is perfectly a legal assembly — that it not only does not violate the law, but that it is entitled to the protection of the law' Perhaps the most significant moment came not during the trial itself, but at the sentencing hearing on November 27, 1813. When Saurin attempted to use Magee's publication of O'Connell's defence speech as grounds for increasing Magee's sentence, O'Connell delivered what may be his most important statement on the role of the legal profession. In the face of personal threats of contempt and possible imprisonment following his denunciation of the Attorney General, O'Connell stood firm, delivering an impassioned defence of the importance of an independent Bar: 'It is the first interest of the public that the Bar shall be left free... the public are deeply interested in our independence; their properties, their lives, their honours, are entrusted to us; and if we, in whom such a guardianship is confided, be degraded, how can we afford protection to others?'. This was not merely professional self-interest, but a profound understanding of the Bar's constitutional role. In a system designed to exclude the majority from political participation, an independent legal profession became the last protection of individual rights. O'Connell grasped the fact that, without fearless advocates willing to challenge authority, the law would become merely an instrument of oppression. That is why, as the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, put it when addressing the O'Connell 250 Symposium in Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday last, The Bar of Ireland has always been rightly proud of the fact that O'Connell was such a distinguished member of the Bar. Two hundred years later, the existence of a fearless independent Bar, practising advocacy and giving legal advice to the highest professional standards, remains an essential guarantee of the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. The many, often insidious, efforts that exist, whether prompted by powerful commercial, bureaucratic or political interests, to degrade or diminish the Bar are always, above all else, an attack on the rights of citizens and on the rule of law. O'Connell's performance in The King v. John Magee exemplifies the best traditions of forensic advocacy at The Bar of Ireland. Faced with a corrupt system, a biased tribunal, and impossible odds, he refused to bow his head or moderate his principles. Instead, he turned the forms and processes of an unjust and oppressive system against itself, using a political prosecution against dissenting speech as the means to condemn the oppressor and amplify the dissent. In an age when legal systems worldwide face challenges to their integrity and especially to the independence of barristers and advocates, O'Connell's example reminds us that the law's highest purpose is not merely to maintain order, but to secure justice. His defence of John Magee shows the difference a single barrister, armed with skill, courage, and unwavering principle, can make. Seán Guerin SC. Picture: Conor McCabe Photography. Seán Guerin SC is Chair of the Council of The Bar of Ireland
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: Obama's silence on Gaza makes Freedom of Dublin award deeply problematic
There's a long and noble Irish tradition of giving medals to people who don't need them. Mimicking our one-time oppressors, we're good at the pomp and pageantry, terrible at timing. And in this grand tradition of ceremonial sycophancy, we've now decided to give the Freedom of Dublin to Barack Obama — the same Barack Obama whose presidential legacy includes a kill list, expanded drone warfare, and now, more recently, a silence on Gaza so deafening it practically registers on the Richter scale. Now, before someone starts waving a Hope poster in my face and singing 'Is Feider Linn', let's be clear: this isn't a character assassination. Barack Obama is, by many accounts, charming, intelligent, a skilled orator, and less overtly monstrous than some who followed him. But if the bar for receiving Dublin's highest civic honour is simply 'better than Trump,' then let's all take turns. This isn't about left or right. It's about right and wrong. And giving Obama the keys to a city that prides itself on solidarity, social justice and neutrality — a city only a century since it's own liberation from colonisers, a city that once shut down its port in protest of apartheid — is a moral absurdity that would be funny if it weren't so grotesque. Let's talk about Gaza. Right now, we're witnessing an unquestionable genocide, one that even conservative estimates rank among the worst atrocities in recent memory. Tens of thousands dead. Children buried under rubble. Journalists and doctors targeted with impunity. And what's Obama's response? A few muted bromides about 'the complexity of the situation' and the usual plea for restraint — the kind of lukewarm platitude you'd expect from someone looking to protect a Netflix deal, not someone once hailed as the conscience of the free world. Remember, this is the same man who, while president, gave Israel the largest military aid package in US history — $38bn over ten years. The same man who watched as Gaza was pummelled in 2014, and then blocked efforts at the UN for accountability. In Obama's world, apparently, some lives matter more than others — and it's not the ones buried under the debris in Khan Younis So let's ask: What, exactly, are we honouring? Is it the weekly 'Terror Tuesday' meetings where he personally signed off on drone strikes — many of which killed civilians, including children, with such frequency that his administration had to redefine the word 'combatant' to keep the numbers palatable? Is it the Nobel Peace Prize he received before bombing seven countries? Or is it the charming eloquence with which he explained away extrajudicial assassinations and mass surveillance? Maybe it's the warm pint he had in Moneygall. Maybe that's enough. Maybe our foreign policy is so thin it can be blown over by a puff of Guinness foam. Obama's defenders, and there are many, will say: "He tried." They'll point to the Iran deal. They'll mention the thaw with Cuba. And fair enough — no presidency is black and white (though drone strikes absolutely are). But a Freedom of the City is not a footnote in a CV. It's a declaration of values. And at a time when Dublin has become a symbol — however small — of international moral conscience on Gaza, this award feels not just tone-deaf, but actively insulting It's worth asking how we'd feel if another country handed such an honour to, say, Tony Blair, citing his contribution to the peace process while politely ignoring Iraq. We'd scoff. We'd march. We'd write strongly-worded op-eds, the kind I'm doing now. And yet, because Obama quotes Seamus Heaney and has a smile that makes white liberals feel good about themselves, we're expected to ignore the trail of bodies left in his geopolitical wake. It's also galling because the Freedom of Dublin isn't just symbolic fluff — at least, it wasn't meant to be. It should be given to people like Nelson Mandela and John Hume — people whose lives were defined by their resistance to violence, not their management of it. To toss Obama into that company is like inviting Monsanto to an organic farming festival. Let's not pretend this is just a harmless bit of civic theatre. In a world as interconnected and morally muddled as ours, gestures matter. They signal what we stand for And giving Obama this award now — as children in Gaza die in silence, too exhausted to even scream — sends a very clear message: that brand is more important than behaviour, that the image of progress is more valuable than the practice of it. And to those in Dublin City Council who greenlit this award: shame on you. Not because Obama is uniquely evil — he's not — but because you should know better. You should know that real solidarity isn't measured in photo ops, but in principles. You should know that timing matters. Context matters. And right now, there's blood on the sand in Gaza, and silence in the White House archives. We don't need empty ceremonies. We need moral courage. And giving the Freedom of Dublin to Barack Obama is not an act of courage. It's an act of cowardice wrapped in a velvet sash.
