The family of a man who was murdered a decade ago has said that it is "very distressing" that a person who murders their spouse can benefit financially from that murder.
Noel Byrne, the brother of Paul Byrne, who was murdered by his estranged spouse Tanya Doyle in September 2009, addressed the Oireachtas Committee on Justice and Equality in Leinster House.
Ms Doyle stabbed her estranged husband more than 68 times and five vital organs were punctured.
In an emotional testimony to the committee, Mr Byrne said the murder was "pre-planned" and described the details of the various stab wounds his brother received.
He said that his brother called 999 and it took nine minutes for him to bleed to death as his death was recorded at the other end of the 999 call.
He said Doyle was arrested at the house and "that evening under questioning Tanya admitted to the guards that she had killed Paul for the house and for his money".
Doyle was convicted of murder.
After the conviction, the estate went through probate. The family received legal advice that recommended to them that they needed to purchase her portion of the tenancy of the house.
Otherwise, she would be entitled to a key and to return there after her release from prison.
Mr Byrne said that after contacting his brother's employer they agreed not to pay any money to Doyle from his death benefit or pension plan.
However, the financial controller at the company changed and told the Byrne family there was an obligation to pay Doyle the spouses portion of his pension, amounting to about €1m.
Mr Byre said: "The amount of the pension would have been nearly €23,000 a year. This is why Paul was murdered for the house and for this money. That would have amounted to about €1m over her lifetime, if she lived to the age of an average woman."
He said the insurance company said they had an obligation to pay this money to Doyle and added: "We cannot understand how an insurance should have to pay a convicted murderer, who stated that they killed a person for money to receive any benefit whatsoever."
In 2016, the trustees of the pension decided that they would not pay out this money to Doyle.
"It's a shame to think that this happened ten years ago and the person who commits murder for gain is in a position to receive that gain," he said.
He said that Doyle will be up for parole this year and "we as a family have been consistently struggling with the events of this murder since 2009".
Mr Byrne is a member of the ADVIC group that advocates for greater rights for victims of homicide, their families and friends.
He said: "We can't understand how a person who had admitted murdering somebody can benefit from their crime. It's unbelievable you as Dáil members have not done something sooner."
He said that ten women are killed ever year by their partner or spouse. Since 2009, this amounts to over 100 people murdered by their partner or spouse, and finding themselves in a similar legal battle.
He added: "I really find this very, very distressing ... and nothing has been done about it."
The committee is scrutinising the Civil Liability (Amendment) (Prevention of Benefits from Homicide) Bill 2017.
Fianna Fáil justice spokesperson Jim O'Callaghan outlined that the purpose of the bill is to try to amend Ireland's civil law so that it includes the principle within it that someone who kills another should not be entitled from that killing.
The way the bill seeks to do that is through an amendment of the 1961 Civil Liability Act and amendments of the 1965 Succession Act.
Also addressing the committee, Professor John Mee of University College Cork stressed the need for this legislation to help victims' families.
He said that a lot of work needs to be done to the bill for it to achieve its aim. He cautioned that if it is enacted in its current form it could make things worse.
Citing the Nevin case, he said: "Tom Nevin was murdered 23 years ago but really because of bad drafting the last time the Oireachtas tried to deal with this matter, 23 years on there is still a claim being made because the act said that if you are guilty of murder you would lose out. But it didn't say that if you are convicted of murder that is conclusive proof that you are guilty."
He urged the Oireachtas to make sure the legislation is "properly drafted" as it is extremely difficult for families like the family of Celine Cawley to be "dragged through litigation".
Professor Mee raised further concerns about the proposed law, saying there is perception that there is a loophole in the law, but "the law cannot be both ways".
He said: "The current law is that if somebody murders somebody else and there is a joint tenancy, the killer retains their half-share. There is no sense in which it can be said that the killer takes everything.
"The killer becomes the legal owner but there is a trust imposed, which means in practical terms that the killer does not derive any benefit. That is the mechanism that this bill will use. It states that from the time of the murder there is a trust.
"In England none of this is legislated for. It is just a common law rule as it was in Ireland until 1965 in relation to inheritance and it is still in relation to the joint tenancies."
Professor Mee said that our law is the same as in England, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
He said that it would be unconstitutional and it would be unfair to families to pass legislation that would later be deemed to be unconstitutional and the result they want to avoid happened anyway.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell stated: "What I am hearing here is that property rights take precedence over wilful, first-degree murder. That is what we are arguing here and we keep arguing it."
She agreed with Professor Mee that there should be a stand-alone bill rather than having an amendment to the Civil Liability Bill.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr O'Callaghan said that the principle behind the legislation stands and there is still a need for legislation in this area.
The committee has concluded and will now consider the submissions.
