Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 84.
“One thing I am certain of is that the legislation that is enacted and commenced - obviously, I will listen to what Senators have to say on Committee and Report Stages - will be significantly better from the point of view of victims before our courts than the statutory scheme is at present. I note that Senator McDowell welcomed the fact that there are diverse categories of miscellaneous provisions. It is a real advantage to a Minister to have this type of mechanism to bring forward so many different legislative proposals. He said it is important that the other legislative proposals or schemes being amended are amended accordingly. That is important. The Law Reform Commission does an excellent job in consolidating and updating legislation.”
“It is on page 23 of the Bill, in the change I am introducing into section 19A(11) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, where it is stated that, "Subject to subsection (12), a court shall not, after the hearing referred to in subsection (8), order disclosure of the content of the applicable record concerned to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied" that "the record is likely to be relevant". The issue of an unfair trial and the interest of justice is then set out. That is the presumption of non-disclosure. Any judge reading this section when an application is made will know that he or she shall not disclose the content of the record unless these provisions apply. This is what is known in legal terminology as a "presumption of non-disclosure".”
“It sometimes happens that a complainant does not make a complaint until many years after the event occurred. That can be for reasons of trauma. What was pointed out to me is that there are very many advantages in a complainant in a court process being able to say they went to counselling two or three weeks after the event and the counselling notes completely record what they said at the time, which corroborates what they are saying now. We need to recognise that this is not a simple issue. I fully appreciate that. There is an advantage, however, in having access to the counselling notes for the prosecution in criminal trials, and this is something that needs to be reflected on. One of the Senators asked where the presumption of non-disclosure is.”
“As I said, I had the opportunity to engage with Ciara Mangan and Beyond Surviving a number of weeks ago. I have spoken to many of the people involved in the sector. People have spoken about the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Rape Crisis Ireland knows that the proposal I am putting forward is appropriate. Other people recognise that as well. We also need to take into account that there is not one homogeneous view among survivors within the community. People have different views. One of the most interesting points made to me by the people from Beyond Surviving, and this is something that I should have emphasised and should be emphasising more, is that counselling notes can be very beneficial in the prosecution of an offence of rape or sexual assault.”
“If I go any further in this regard, as has been suggested by Senators Higgins, Collins and Stephenson, and introduce legislation saying that there is no entitlement to use counselling notes in a criminal prosecution or defence case, what would happen is that individuals would challenge that on the grounds that they would say they are being deprived of the right to fair procedure and that it is constitutionally impermissible to just categorise one section or category of evidence and say there can never be access to it. There could be something within a counselling note that is highly relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused. There could be something in a counselling note that a jury should be aware of or that a person should be entitled to raise questions about, whether it be the prosecution or the accused.”
“In this legislation, I have to ensure that when those two rights do conflict, there is a fair statutory mechanism to resolve that conflict. I want people in this House to know that I have introduced a scheme that is slanted as much as possible in favour of the right to privacy, as opposed to the right to a fair trial, as far as I can. I cannot go any further.”
“What will happen under the statutory scheme I have put in place is that a judge will be required to look at the counselling notes and see if there is anything in them that is relevant. The judge will have to determine whether, if he does not disclose the counselling note to the accused, or indeed the prosecution, there will be an unfair trial and whether it is in the interests of justice. I, as Minister for justice, and Senators, as Member of the Oireachtas, have to take into account that we are dealing with a sensitive and complex issue. On the one hand, we are dealing with the right to privacy that people have when they go to counselling to ensure their counselling account and narrative are protected. On the other hand, I also have to take into account the right to a fair trial. Sometimes, infrequently, those two rights will conflict.”
“Part of the reason for that is the provision introduced in 2017 permitted the waiver of the requirement that counselling notes would be inspected. Consequently, for the purposes of getting a trial under way quickly, victims and complainants in such cases were waiving their right to seek a hearing on it. As a result of that, counselling notes were provided and irrelevant and inappropriate cross-examination was attempted for the purpose of trying to rely on the counselling notes. I am changing that. The way I am changing it is, in the first instance, there must now be a hearing when an accused or the prosecution are seeking access to and use of counselling notes.”
“It is widely accepted that, notwithstanding the best efforts of Members of the Oireachtas at that time, this was not achieved because the measures introduced did not have an impact on reducing the provision of counselling notes to the defence in sexual assault or rape trials. I want to change that. The easiest thing for me to do would be to do nothing, say it is being considered and I am engaging with the sector and not make a decision on it. I am not prepared to do that because I believe the proposal I have made is the most appropriate and permissible statutory intervention I can make, taking into account the unambiguous advice I have received from the Attorney General. At present, the provision of counselling notes under the statutory scheme sometimes happens on a routine basis.”
“I will deal with some of the issues raised. Senators Harmon, Collins, Higgins, Stephenson and O'Reilly spoke on counselling notes. They all expressed support for other elements of the legislation, whether the criminalisation of sex for rent, the disregard scheme or other measures. I am conscious people generally focus on aspects they disagree with, as opposed to those they agree with. Counselling notes are an issue of concern, not just to those five Senators but to others as well. One thing we can all agree on is the current statutory provision is unacceptable. Everyone in Dáil Éireann agrees with that, everyone here agrees with that and everyone in the sector agrees with that. The current statutory provision was put in place in 2017 when we tried to resolve this issue through legislative change.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions. I am conscious that when I introduce a miscellaneous provisions Bill, there will be aspects Members will be supportive of and other aspects they will not be supportive of. That is the nature of a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We will have opportunities through votes on Committee Stage or Report Stage for people to set out their views on individual sections and provisions. Senators are not being deprived of the opportunity to make the political points they wish to make on each section. How long do I have?”
“I also intend to bring forward two important security-related amendments. One is to extend the State's passenger name record, PNR, system. The second is to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926. It is important to have these security-related amendments in place. This is a diverse Bill, and there is a lot of material in it. In the Dáil, there was general support for a lot of its Parts, but there was criticism too that I was putting too much into it. I will not apologise for that. I know from my experience of politics that the ministerial life comes and goes very quickly. You are better off trying to get things done as promptly as possible. If many of these proposals were not pushed forward in a miscellaneous provisions Bill, we would still be talking about them in years to come.”
“Section 70 amends the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 to transfer functions under the Act from me as Minister to the Minister for housing. Section 71 amends the Prisons Act 2015 to provide that I, as Minister, may direct that a person be taken from prison to effect a deportation or removal order where two years or less of their sentence remains. Sections 72 to 75 contain various technical amendments to a variety of legislation. I conclude by saying I will bring forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage, namely, provisions to enable the expanded use of electronic technology in criminal proceedings, provisions for certificate evidence of Garda presumptive drug testing in certain proceedings, and a new Garda power under the Public Order Act 1994 to require the removal of face coverings in certain prescribed circumstances.”
“Part 16 contains miscellaneous amendments. Section 65 amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 to provide that where a person entering into a bail bond is in Garda custody, the Garda can take the recognisance. Section 66 amends the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 consequential on the Bill’s amendment of section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 about personal records. Section 67 amends the Schedule to the Bail Act 1997 to add several new offences to the Schedule. Section 68 amends the Children Act 2001 to lower from superintendent to inspector the minimum Garda rank that may apply to court for an antisocial behaviour order. Section 69 amends the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to enable the courts to use the personal public service number, PPSN, to verify the identity of persons submitting documents.”
“Part 13 amends the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 to criminalise the exploitative behaviour commonly referred to as "sex for rent" by creating new offences of offering or advertising accommodation in exchange for sexual activity. I commend Senator Harmon on previously putting forward legislation in this House that I said I would adopt, and this is my adoption of it. Part 14 provides a permanent regulatory basis under which licensed premises may provide outdoor seating on public land. Part 15 provides for an application-based scheme to enable the disregard of certain historical convictions, cautions and probation orders relating to consensual sexual activity between men. The scheme will create a basis by which an eligible conviction can effectively be nullified so that its recipient is treated in law as if it never happened.”
“Part 9 amends the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Part 10 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2006 to provide that where a person entering into a suspended sentence bond is in prison custody, the governor may take the recognisance. Part 11 amends the International Criminal Court Act 2006 to give effect to the State’s intended ratification of the amendments to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ICC, and to explicitly provide that the State can co-operate with the ICC with respect to requests. Part 12 amends the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014 to allow Forensic Science Ireland, FSI, to generate profiles derived from the analysis of coding DNA for identification purposes in cases relating to missing and unknown persons.”
“Irrespective of the legal mechanism, we need to have supports in place for people who have gone through sexual assaults or sex trials and have recognised that the trauma of doing that is very significant. Section 17 amends the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to provide that where a person is convicted of any indictable offence, character evidence for sentencing purposes must be given on oath or by affidavit. Section 18 amends the Criminal Justice Act 1999 to provide that Garda staff, in addition to Garda members, as is already the case, may prepare and sign certificates of evidence relating to custody of exhibits. Part 8 amends various enactments to reassign from the Department of foreign affairs to my Department the responsibility for certifying Irish citizenship where it is relevant to the prosecution of offences.”
“The legislation expands the protections of section 19A to include medical records, child protection records and social work records. There has been extensive consultation with stakeholders. In terms of that consultation, I believe this is an appropriate course to adopt. I recently had the opportunity of having a successful and illuminating meeting, organised by Deputy Shane Moynihan, with a group called Beyond Surviving. It is a survivor-led charity. It was a very informative discussion, and I became aware that there are clearly different views in the survivor community on the disclosure of counselling notes. I think it is important that we all reflect on and listen to other perspectives.”
“As I have been repeatedly reminded by the Attorney General, I cannot introduce an outright ban on counselling notes, as that would be unconstitutional. I cannot introduce an outright ban on any personal records. The scheme put in place here will ensure that a judge will carefully examine any records and they will only be disclosed if necessary for the purpose of ensuring there is not an unfair trial and also to ensure that it is in the interests of justice. The amended legislation sets out a two-stage process, inserting a filtering stage in respect of disclosure applications. This mechanism will eliminate "fishing expeditions" by requiring that the likely relevance of a record be shown before any disclosure is even contemplated.”
“My amendments delete the waiver provision contained in section 19A, which has all too often meant that victims have failed to benefit from the protections which the legislation provides. From now on, every time that such counselling notes or personal records are sought by the defence, a judge will carefully scrutinise the material and make an impartial and objective decision on whether disclosure is warranted. My amendments also provide for a presumption of non-disclosure, ensuring that the default position is that these records are not to be disclosed. The exception to this is where the court is satisfied, after examining the record, that it is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial and there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure, or it is otherwise in the interests of justice to so order.”
“At present, that is only 12 months. It will increase from 240 to 480 the maximum community service hours that a judge may order. Those provisions will assist in ensuring that people who may not need go to prison do not go to prison and that they do community service instead. Part 7 relates to criminal evidence. Section 16 amends section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 to restrict the disclosure of counselling records and other personal records in sexual offence trials. Senators will be aware that in 2017 legislation was enacted by both Houses of the Oireachtas to try to restrict such disclosure. Unfortunately, that legislation did not fulfil its intended purpose.”
“It also makes express affirmatory provision in primary law for the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power. That is when An Garda Síochána requests the assistance of the Defence Forces, which happens frequently throughout the year. Finally, there are provisions relating to the protection of military installations by the Defence Forces. Part 5 amends the Extradition Act 1965 to empower Garda members to provisionally arrest, without a warrant, persons named in Schengen information system, SIS, alerts from Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This amendment is necessary if the SIS is to operate as intended in such cases. Part 6 amends the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 to oblige the courts to consider a community service order in lieu of a prison sentence of up to 24 months.”
“I also believe that is a very necessary measure in light of the threat that can arise to the public from those who lawfully hold firearms. Part 3 amends the Courts of Justice Act 1924, the Courts Service Act 1998 and the Judicial Council Act 2019 to empower the overworked Chief Justice to delegate certain non-judicial functions to other members of the Judiciary. Part 4 amends the Defence Act 1954. These were amendments tabled on Committee Stage by my colleague, the Minister, Deputy McEntee. They are amendments to strengthen the powers of the Defence Forces in safeguarding the security of the State in certain circumstances arising in the territorial sea or internal waters of the State or where there is a risk to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the State.”
“Senators will be aware that miscellaneous provisions Bills provide a great opportunity for the Executive but, more importantly, for the Legislature to pass legislation in a variety of different areas promptly and effectively. That is what I am doing in this legislation. The Bill is divided into 75 sections across 16 Parts and one Schedule. Part 1 contains standard provisions. Part 2 amends the Firearms Act 1925 and the Prisons Act 2007 to provide a basis for the possession, carriage and use of incapacitant sprays by prison officers in the course of their duties. I believe that is necessary for prison officers. Part 2 further amends the Firearms Act to enable the gardaí to seize and detain a lawfully held firearm or ammunition for up to 14 days where the member reasonably suspects a danger to public safety, security or the peace.”
“Members of the Garda are obliged to log and retain digital evidence seized in the format in which it was captured under warrant. Encryption runs contrary to current evidence and best practice of maintaining the technical integrity of seized data should it be challenged in court proceedings. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.”
“It requires confidential treatment and the return of deleted material. As I have said, it is consistent with the decision of the CJEU in the Landeck case on police access to data stored on mobile phones during criminal investigations. That court was of the view that there was a need for post-access notification once this would not prejudice the investigation. Such notification is not required per subsection (4) where doing so would compromise national security, prejudice a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings or would jeopardise the safety of a person. As I said, I believe that section 23 addresses the concern set out in the amendment. However, even if the amendment was accepted it would not be possible for the Garda to ensure that data is encrypted at rest and transit as the seized data may itself be encrypted.”
“I thank Senator Andrews for his amendment. In responding to it I must rely upon what is in section 23 of the Bill because it deals with very many of the concerns expressed by Senator Andrews in his amendment. Section 23 is entitled "Treatment of material seized under search warrant". Section 23(1) provides that anyone who "seizes material, shall ensure that following its removal from the place of search the material is stored and a record is made of the material". There is also a requirement that when it is no longer needed the material must "be returned to the person who disclosed the material", and then, others who have it must ensure that the material is deleted, without delay, and the person from whom it was seized must be informed at the time of its deletion. Section 23 sets out the rules for handling seized material.”
“Privilege will be preserved and protected and there is the mechanism whereby it can be assessed but what cannot happen is somebody says “privilege” and therefore you cannot look at it or seek to access it. It is at a further stage for the content of the privilege to be assessed and determined by the court.”
“On the amendment, an additional provision stating that a journalist or publisher has no obligation to provide access credentials once privilege has been asserted would be counterproductive. The statutory framework already assumes that access to a device may be required in order to identify, preserve and securely process potentially privileged materials before a court can determine whether privilege applies. In the context of encrypted devices it may be impossible to conduct privileged screening unless the device can be accessed or preserved. A blanket exception would therefore risk frustrating the operation of the carefully balanced safeguards contained in the Bill. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.”
“The Bill, therefore, is not creating a novel or unrestricted power but rather modernises and structures existing investigative powers in light of the realities of encrypted digital evidence. Importantly, the Bill also responds directly to concerns expressed in another important Supreme Court decision, DPP v. Quirke, and, indeed, in Corcoran v. The Commissioner, with regard to the seizure and access of a device. It expressly allows a judge to limit the scope of any warrant concerning electronic devices and to attach conditions where necessary. The reason for that is that in the Quirke decision Mr. Justice Charleton said that an electronic device is really a separate space that requires a specific and separate authorisation.”
“The Bill therefore places the issue of compelled access under judicial supervision from the outset because an order under section 19(1)(f) will only be made where the judge is satisfied that such powers are necessary and proportionate having regard to the sworn information provided by the applicant. The Bill therefore places the issue of compelled access under judicial supervision. This approach adopted reflects the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission which recognised that persons executing search warrants may require powers to obtain assistance from persons present, including assistance in accessing digital material. Similar provisions already exist in Irish law under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act.”
“I thank Senator Andrews for his amendment. Under section 19(1)(f) of the Bill there is an ability within a search warrant for it to be expressed in such a way as to require any person who appears to the authorised member to have access to, or to have under his or her power or control, the information held in any electronic device or that can be accessed by it to provide them with the passwords. The amendment put forward by Senator Andrews and his colleagues is in respect of that. It says that where journalists or a publisher asserts journalistic privilege in respect of materials stored on an electronic device no requirement to provide access credentials, which is what is provided for in section 19(1)(f), shall apply until a court has determined whether the privilege applies.”
“Even if the search warrant is granted and information is then procured by An Garda Síochána, they cannot look at it until such time as an order is made. If an application is made by the affected party claiming that this involves privilege there is a process for it to be determined before a High Court judge. It is very thorough.”
“Amendment No. 8 is sufficiently covered by the provisions of the Bill already. The Bill significantly strengthens the protection of journalistic privilege. It introduces a judicially supervised process governing potentially privileged material. Applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis with the court empowered to seek additional information and to grant, limit or refuse access depending on what is necessary. I believe very categorically that the statutory provision in place will ensure that if a member of the Garda, the Irish police force, is going to the District Court looking for a search warrant, and if the garda is aware that this may involve privileged material, there is a statutory obligation on the garda to bring that to the attention of the court. The court will very much take that into account.”
“There is an application in the District Court and the district judge has to be satisfied with the application. If the Garda are aware that there may be privileged material involved in the search, that must be brought to the attention of the district judge. It is a matter then for the district judge to strike a balance between safeguarding privilege and ensuring that the judicial process can move forward. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment. As I said earlier, I believe that the provisions contained within this are sufficient to respond to the concerns that were highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Corcoran, and which I am giving effect to in this statutory provision. Senator Andrews has also moved forward amendment No. 8. Are we discussing this also?”
“I thank Senator Andrews for his amendment. I think this was also discussed on Committee Stage. The proposed insertion of section 21 on which this amendment relies is not necessary as the Bill already provides appropriate safeguards in relation to journalistic privilege. As I mentioned earlier, the application for a search warrant to the District Court requires members of the Garda to notify the court of any issues related to privilege as is known to them. This ensures that if there are concerns regarding privilege the Garda must bring them to the judge's attention and this allows the judge to make informed decisions and draw appropriate inferences about the potential privileged material without placing the entire responsibility on the Garda.”
“There can be an assessment on whether it is legal professional privilege or journalistic privilege or other types of privilege that may arise. There is a statutory procedure in place that enables that submission or that contention of privilege to be assessed and determined on an inter partes basis.”
“That distinction reflects the approach endorsed in the Corcoran case, as I just indicated, namely, that the essential safeguard is prior independent review before access to the material itself, rather than requiring every procedural step to occur on notice. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment. Senator Andrews may have been concerned that the term "journalistic privilege" is not contained within the Bill. There are reasons for that. It is hard to get a specific definition "journalistic privilege". It is recognised in Irish law and it is respected in Irish law. The decision of Corcoran emphasises that. As a drafter, I thought it was more appropriate to have a reference to privilege in general.”
“Where material is apprehended to be privileged and an authorised member seeks to access it for evidential purposes, an application must be made to the High Court. That application proceeds on notice to the relevant person who is entitled to identify the material claimed to be privileged and make submissions to the court. The court may also issue interim preservation directions and appoint an independent and suitably qualified person to examine the material and report back. Unless and until the court determines that the material is not privileged, it cannot be examined by investigators. Where privilege is upheld the material must be returned or deleted.”
“Just because somebody is a lawyer it does not mean that their phone is protected from search by the Garda. Privileged material on the phone is protected but the Garda are entitled to probe that. Similarly, just because a person says he or she is a journalist does not mean that the search comes to the end. I indicated, I think on Committee Stage, that I felt this proposed amendment to section 18 was not necessary and I remain of that view. The Bill already provides for inter partes adjudication before privileged material may be examined, but preserves the ability for initial warrant applications to proceed ex parte where operationally necessary. As I mentioned already, sections 24 and 25 of the Bill create a structured mechanism for the resolution of privileged disputes.”
“If there is going to be a complaint made by an individual who is the subject of a search warrant that information or a computer was seized that contains material governed by privilege, this is set out in subsections (1) and (2) of section 24. Without reading out all the procedures, there is a mechanism contained within this for a hearing before the High Court where individuals can set out what they view as the reasons as to why the search warrant or the material should not be inspected because it is covered by journalistic privilege. Obviously we could not have a situation where somebody is just able to say you cannot search that because it is legal privilege or that it is journalistic privilege. There has to be some assessment of it.”
“That could be legal professional privilege, it could be journalistic privilege or it could be some other public interest privilege. That is expressly provided for. Then there are further provisions contained within section 19, which provides for the search of electronic device or information system under search warrant. As the last subsection of section 19 provides that "subject to the condition that a privilege screening or digital forensic examination of the data concerned may be conducted", there is a recognition that there is a process of screening information for any privileged information. However, the real substantive provisions that relate to Senator Andrews's amendment are contained in sections 24 and 25 of the Bill. Section 24 sets out a process for the determination as to privilege.”
“Section 17(5) states: Where an applicant [who is a member of An Garda Síochána] suspects that privileged material may be present at the proposed place of search, or contained in, or accessible from, any electronic device or information system that may be present at that place, his or her application shall include such information as is known to him or her relating to - (a) the nature of the privileged material concerned, and (b) any other matter relating to the privileged material ... To begin with, therefore, there is now an express statutory obligation on any garda who is applying to the District Court for a search warrant to inform the court of the fact that he or she believes there may be privileged information pursuant to the search.”
“I believe that the provisions contained in the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill do so. Senator Andrews's amendment refers to the necessity for an inter partes hearing, but it is important at the outset to set out what is the procedure set out in Part 3 of the legislation. For instance, looking at section 17, it governs the standard provision in respect of an application for a search warrant. It sets out when a member of An Garda Síochána may apply for a search warrant.”
“Justice Hogan, to whom Senator Andrews referred, indicated that section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 was very defective because it did not provide any mechanism for the court to be informed about the fact that an application for a search warrant may impinge upon or affect journalistic privilege. Mr. Justice Hogan and the rest of the Supreme Court said that section 10, which is the provision that deals with the application for a search warrant, required urgent legislative intervention by the Oireachtas. That is why I am bringing forward what is in Part 3 of this piece of legislation. It is to ensure the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court are responded to, and that the legislation seeking search warrants is more robust, and also recognises and reflects the importance of privilege that may arise.”
“The District Court was not informed at the time of the search warrant application that the respondent to the application was a journalist. Mr. Corcoran went the whole way to the Supreme Court and was successful in his challenge to the search warrant that was imposed against him. The reason An Garda Síochána had sought the search warrant and access to his digital communications - his computer - was because there had been a very serious assault and attack in a certain part of the country and the Garda believed there was valuable and useful information and evidence on Mr. Corcoran's laptop. Ultimately, however, journalistic privilege prevailed. During the course of the Supreme Court judgment, Mr.”
“I thank Senator Andrews for his amendment and his contribution. Senator Andrews's amendment and the subsequent amendments relate to Part 3 of the Bill, which concerns search of premises. Senator Andrews has correctly emphasised the importance of our legal process giving recognition to journalistic privilege. The reason I am bringing forward amendments in respect of Part 3 is specifically because of the Supreme Court judgment to which Senator Andrews referred, namely, Corcoran. Corcoran, as I indicated previously, was a very important decision. It involved a journalist being subjected to a search warrant application by An Garda Síochána. It was heard in the District Court. The search warrant was for the search of the offices of the journalist and his own residence.”
“There is a huge benefit in policymakers, the public and the Garda having data on who is being interacted with when it comes to the criminal justice system, but I would be very hesitant about adding that obligation on when it comes to the stop-and-search powers. There may be other ways of doing surveys in respect of it, but the only reason a stop-and-search power should be used by a member of An Garda Síochána is that he or she has a reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed.”
“I would not like to see a situation where the Garda has data and says, "Oh, look, a certain nationality is over-represented and another nationality is under-represented; we need to stop and search more of the latter." That is not what should happen. I have no doubt without getting any data that the overwhelming number of people who are stopped and searched, or who would be stopped and searched pursuant to the provisions here, will be men as opposed to women. I do not think it could be suggested that for gender equality reasons the Garda should seek to ensure that more women are stopped and searched. It is a complicated issue.”
“The only basis for An Garda Síochána to exercise these powers is if it has a reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed. There is a lot to be gained from getting data as to whom the Garda is interacting with, and that is why I referred to the other work that is ongoing. What I would not like to see happen, however, is that if data is produced, in some respect this puts an obligation or pressure on members of An Garda Síochána to move outside the statutory scheme, which is that people should be stopped and searched only if there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed.”