Lynn Ruane
University of Dublin · Independent · Ireland
“The chairperson of the board of the Courts Service, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, said that the rise in drugs cases of a less serious kind had increased the workload of the lower courts.”
“I remember I could barely write when I started studying addiction. I was 16 when I applied for an addiction studies course. They would not let me on it because they said I was too young and it was for adults. I fought and fought. I did not know how to write an essay. I had not engaged in school since I was about 12.”
“The world is watching how Ireland has done the most extensive interrogation of drugs policy ever seen, and is waiting in hope to see what we do next to make sure that we move with the evidence. It is not just opinion.”
“I join Senator McDowell in thanking all the people we should thank for the efficient and smooth running of these Houses. He ran through them all. Even if we have had a few ding-dongs over rulings on amendments and stuff, other than that, things have moved well, as they always do. I thank the staff across both Houses.”
“There are not many things I will claim some level of expertise in, but this is one where I will claim it. I have been obsessed with it since I was about 16. I look forward to coming back in the new year, and not just for 90 minutes. We need a substantial time to discuss this report, whether three hours, four hours or six hours.”
“It will contain all incidents of prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the AI Act; all serious incidents of high-risk AI systems in the State, reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems that are employed in critical infrastructure; and any other AI-related incidents or notifications in the State required to be reported under the…”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Lynn Ruane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“We have discussed stop and search in relation to the possession of drugs earlier, but it is relevant here. If you go to any District Court, you are not seeing barristers up on stop and search for possession charges. We are not seeing members of An Garda Síochána, teachers, pilots or wherever else there is another concentration. As an addiction practitioner since the age of 17, I know they are carrying substances but they are not represented in the prison system and statistics. If all types of people use drugs but not all types of people end up convictions for them, that has to tell us that there is a use of stop and search on certain communities. We will see more and more of that applied in relation to ethnicity and nationality.”
“When we look at capturing ethnicity and, like Senator McDowell said, at how racial bias or unconscious bias comes into how we make decisions around policing, there is also something in relation to ensuring that we look at class. For a long time, class was at the forefront of how police made their decisions in terms of what community they policed the most. If a community is more policed, a person is more likely to encounter gardaí in their day at regular intervals and have more exposure. If somebody is over-policed and the use of stop and search is used more on them because police are present in that community more, we are going to find that the community is the most represented within the courts or prison system. I would argue that in all instances of types of crimes. All types of communities, for instance, use substance.”
“When I worked in homeless services many years ago, there was nowhere one could go for interpretation so I have seen how far it had progressed in the intervening time since I was there. Even if it is not through this amendment, we should look at ways in which we integrate on-the-spot interpretation in all the different State institutions and arms of the State to ensure positive interactions and relationships and to reduce the impact of stop and search on minority or marginalised communities.”
“The provision regarding interpreters can seem overly onerous. How long does that extend the interaction? When the Chamber was not meeting during Covid, I volunteered my time with homeless, addiction and health equity services concerning homeless people who needed to be isolated in certain hostels and language was obviously a big issue. Some of those systems had interpreters who were very quickly contacted over the phone and who then interpreted back and forth with that person concerning whether he or she was going to be hospitalised or transferred. Instead of seeing an interpretation service as something physical, there are other ways in which we can work in interpretation. I do not know how it would work. All I know is that I have seen it work in other areas so I saw it at first hand.”
“If someone receives one conviction, it stays on his or her record for seven years but once he or she receives more than one, it stays on his or her record forever. When gardaí are interacting with the public or somebody they suspect of doing something, this amendment aims to bring about being able to do so in a way that reduces the harm that could be caused through that interaction.”
“On reducing the potential for an increased number of convictions in one instance, often somebody could be stopped and searched for one particular reason resulting in potentially one particular prosecution if he or she is found to be in breach of some sort of law. Where there is miscommunication, a lack of information or confusion about what is happening or a lack of understanding of the consequence of refusing the stop and search under whatever law is involved, it can increase the number of charges received in what would have been one single incident. As that number increases, whether that be failing to comply or other public order offences, all of a sudden, in one interaction, the number of potential charges can go up depending on how that interaction goes. We obviously know the consequence of that.”
“Regarding access to interpretation, we must recognise that An Garda Síochána interacts with a broad spectrum of people who live and spend time in Ireland and that language difficulties could pose significant barriers to a person being informed of and understanding his or her rights under this Bill. We believe that where language barriers exist, An Garda Síochána should take every step to ensure that the person has access to a translator or translation service so that he or she can understand the context of his or her person or vehicle being searched. These are sensible additions that would serve to uphold and vindicate the rights of people who are subject to stop and search and we hope the Minister of State will consider them favourably.”
“22 proposes two additions: that the member would advise the person subject to the search of the consequence if he or she fails to comply with the search, and that the person would be informed of his or her right to an interpreter if an interpreter is so required. This amendment would help to assert the rights of individuals subject to stop and search by An Garda Síochána. Regarding a person's understanding of the consequences of non-compliance, this provision would help to prevent the potential escalation of stop and search leading to unnecessary arrest for a potential public order offence.”
“I move amendment No. 22: In page 11, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(c) the consequences of failing to comply with the search; (d) the right to an interpreter to understand the reasons for the search, if the person so requires.”. Section 12 sets out the right of a person to be informed of the reasons for a stop and search by a member of the Garda. It is welcome that the Bill includes provisions on that right but we are of the view that the section could be strengthened by the additions in amendment No. 22. The section as drafted provides that a member shall inform the person subject to a stop and search in simple, accessible language that: first, the person or their vehicle is about to be searched; second, the reason for the search; and, third, the legislation under which the search is being carried out. Amendment No.”
“(5) Where a search of a person under section 9 or 10 involves removal of clothing, other than headgear or a coat, jacket, glove or similar article of clothing, no person of the opposite sex shall be present. ”.”
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 10, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(2) Any search of a person under section 9 or 10 that involves the removal of clothing, other than headgear or a coat, jacket, glove or similar article of clothing, shall be conducted only with the authorisation of a member of at least the rank of inspector. (3) A member may not give authorisation under subsection (2) unless the member has reasonable grounds for believing that a relevant article cannot be found without the removal of clothing. (4) A member may give an authorisation under subsection (2) orally or in writing but, if such authorisation is given orally, the member shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable and such authorisation shall include the reasonable grounds for the removal of clothing.”
“I would also love to know how many cavity searches happen where nothing at all has been found versus where something has been found, to see what is the benefit of actually doing cavity searches, especially if somebody has been arrested and brought to a station because of a situation that has unfolded sporadically on the street. By this I mean that rather than it being a case of gardaí following someone because they knew that person had something within them, there was an altercation, so X, Y and Z happened just because it had become part of normal practice.”
“20 or not, we need to look at the culture in some spaces of using such practices in a degrading or invasive way. We also need data on the numbers of strip-searches or cavity searches. There is a difference, so we need to differentiate between the full cavity search and the strip-search. How often is a doctor present for those? What threshold has been met to warrant such a search? Is that recorded? Are we mapping that? Are there some communities where it is used more? Why is it used more? How is it used? Who is making that decision? Who has oversight on that? When is a doctor present? Those are questions I have more generally that probably cannot be answered on the spot. It is a sensitive subject for people and not many people speak publicly about their experience of being cavity searched because it is such a traumatising experience.”
“It is also because I do not want communities to spend the next ten, 20, 30 or 40 years mistrusting any authority figure because of a negative experience of something as intimate and degrading as a strip-search. I remember being in a cell in the Garda station as an underage person and being threatened with strip-search. They were never going to strip-search me; they were just threatening it for fun. I do not know why we were taken. It was shoplifting in The Square or something. I speak about these things not only because I know how much they happen, but because that experience still lives inside me where somebody threatened to strip-search me and search my cavities, even though they did not intend to. As a practice, it needs to be minded carefully in terms of how we do that and how that happens. Whether I push amendment No.”
“Patrick's Institution and they spoke about how strip-searches and cavity searches were used as form of humiliation on them as boys housed in adult prisons. Aside from when there is reasonable suspicion that somebody has something in their cavity, especially at the level of indecency of a strip-search, some people have had a negative experience over the years, with strip-searches being used not because there was suspicion the person had something hidden in their cavity, but by someone with power as an oppressive tool with particular communities. I speak about this not to vilify the Garda, as such. I want to challenge historical cultures and figure out where restoration can happen.”
“I do not want to misrepresent anything but I am pretty sure in the case of the strip-searches, one of which was reported to be more invasive, that happened in the wake of the Mothers Against Genocide protest that a doctor was not mentioned. I am open to correction on that. It is extremely invasive and is used even without suspicion that somebody is holding or concealing a weapon. If you have been arrested off the street because of an altercation that has happened, it is extremely difficult when a strip-search is happening off the cuff for somebody to put something inside their cavity so quickly. Stop and search has been used a lot during planned intakes when somebody is being moved from court to prison. I did work recently with men in St.”
“In relation to amendment No. 20, maybe the Minister of State does not have access at the moment to the data on the number of strip-searches that happen and the number at which doctors are present. Over many years, there have been only rare occasions on which it has been communicated to me - whether when I am supporting people in court in relation to community work, addiction or whatever it may be, or even from my own experience as a young person encountering the criminal justice system - that a doctor has been present. I am not saying that is the experience across the country or outside certain urban spaces but it is important to hold that data.”
“Additionally, such a search could only be authorised where a suspected relevant article could not be located on the person without the removal of their clothing. Finally, we provide that where a search requiring the removal of clothing is required, a member of the opposite sex shall not be present while the search is being undertaken. The wording of this amendment closely mirrors the provisions of the relevant ministerial regulation governing the removal of clothing during searches by gardaí and, with this in mind, we hope the Minister of State will consider accepting this as we feel it is a sensible and prudent proposal that is in line with other ministerial regulations.”
“International human rights frameworks generally require that such searches take place only where they are necessary and proportionate and where they are conducted with respect for the individual's bodily integrity. It is imperative that we provide protection in our primary legislation that will govern stop and search by gardaí, in addition to the treatment of persons in Garda custody, to uphold individual rights that are only ever compromised where necessity and proportionality are well established. Our amendment provides that a search that requires the removal of clothing other than a person's outer garments can only be undertaken with the authorisation of a member of at least the rank of inspector, ensuring an additional layer of oversight in regard to intimate searches.”
“We think it is imperative that these legislative safeguards are included in primary legislation, and this amendment would have this effect. The Minister of State will recall, I hope, the vigil that took place outside the gates of Leinster House just over a year ago, organised by Mothers Against Genocide. There was a very heavy-handed response at the time to this peaceful protest, which saw a number of participants arrested and subjected to strip searches at Garda stations. We wrote to the Minister at the time expressing significant concern about the heavy-handed response to the vigil but, perhaps more importantly, the extent of the invasiveness of the subsequent searches the activists were subjected to. Strip searches involve a profound intrusion into a person's right to privacy and dignity.”
“As already noted, it has been demonstrated in Ireland that the courts are usually quite deferential to the legal thresholds for police searches set out by the Oireachtas, meaning that the Garda currently has wide discretion to exercise its stop and search powers. We must ensure that with the expansion of its powers under this Bill, people are adequately safeguarded from invasive, targeted and discriminatory policing by the Garda. Amendment No. 20 seeks to introduce four new subsections that would safeguard individuals who are subject to invasive searches where the removal of items of clothing is required by An Garda Síochána. The removal of clothing during a search by gardaí is currently primarily governed by a 1987 ministerial regulation under the criminal justice Act.”
“Amendment No. 19 inserts a new subsection that would set out circumstances that would not provide grounds for a member of An Garda Síochána to undertake stop and search of an individual. This amendment would ensure an individual could not be subject to indiscriminate search by gardaí because of their age, race, ethnicity, the clothes they are wearing or the type of vehicle they are driving. The Garda Inspectorate has previously advised of the concern expressed by all ranks of An Garda Síochána regarding the widespread use of drug-related stop and search powers to search people for other suspected offences. Gardaí have also noted that these stops and searches can be a stain on a person's character, as they are recorded on the PULSE system even in circumstances where no drugs are found on the person.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 10, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(1) The following shall not be considered reasonable grounds to conduct a search of a person under section 9 or 10 — (a) the age of the person; (b) the race or ethnicity of the person; (c) the clothing the person is wearing; (d) the type of vehicle the person is driving.”. I welcome the new Minister of State to the Chamber. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are grouped together. Amendment No. 19 includes a new subsection to prevent the targeted misuse of stop and search powers by An Garda Síochána under the Bill. As noted in an earlier contribution on stop and search, we are hugely concerned that the Bill, as drafted, provides a vast legislative basis for the use of these invasive powers that risk facilitating discriminatory enforcement by the Garda.”
“That is about how we meet somebody with compassion and care, and create opportunities for connection, compassion and health intervention, and do not leave them with the drugs. People will not ring the police on someone they love. If we can accept that is how we would approach it, we would realise that putting someone in front of a judge is not the answer, so when we talk about decriminalisation, we are sticking to evidence. Whatever about what The New York Times has said, all the evidence from all the experts is that drugs policy often does more harm in the end to the person than the substance itself. I will not press it any further. Obviously the conversation is ongoing in Ireland, and we will continue to have it. Nobody is denying that, in some instances, substance use can be harmful.”
“He is not saying that he knows the best place for his relative is in front of a judge. When we accept that premise, it is not saying that some substance use is not harmful, but asking where the best place is to deal with that. It is not in handcuffs. That is to be clear about the intention. The global commission and UN treaty are all trying to figure out how they row back on the implications of what they have done for us with regard to the drugs Act and Garda powers. I will finish the conversation because I accept the way in which I am having it is not the space, but I ask the Minister to acknowledge, in his own time, though not now, that he is not ringing the police if someone he loves and cares about is in possession. He is ringing somebody he knows can help them. That is what decriminalisation is.”
“Nobody who looks to decriminalise the person, not even the drug, is going to call people a criminal because they have a substance misuse issue or because they were found in possession of a small amount of drugs going into a festival with no intent to supply. What we really intend to talk about is that person. If a relation that the Minister loved came to him and said that they smoke weed and think they are experiencing psychosis, I guarantee with my whole heart that the Minister will not ring the police on him. He is not doing that. Why would he accept the Garda powers in relation to it? The Minister might say he knows a good health professional or, if the relative is young enough, that he knows a youth worker who works specifically on substance use, and looks at how we reduce that.”
“I should have said at the outset that I miscommunicated with my office when submitting other amendments. I have no interest in moving those amendments when we get to them. On section 3, I understand and accept the way in which I am going about it, but it is so associated with Garda powers that it is hard to separate them sometimes. It is important that we say that decriminalisation around the world has not increased drug use, nor has it decreased it. That is not its intended purpose. We need to not confuse the differences between policy harms and harms related to the drugs themselves, because they are two different things.”
“It does not water down stop and search powers, it just makes them more robust and makes it mean that the Garda at least have to have a reasonable level of evidence to stop and search someone for sale and supply instead of having such a low bar to use such damaging stop and search powers.”
“While this may be more related to the drugs Act, I am apprehensive and conscious about bringing in further Bills around stop and search and not for us to have an honest discussion on section 3 and to solidify such stop and search powers in relation to possession. I do not think they do anything for any sort of trust-building or harmonious relationships between communities and the Garda. If anything, it de-skills the Garda skill set in relation to actually looking at that larger crime of supply in relation to communities and the sale and supply of drugs. While I am under no illusion that the Minister will accept the amendment today, I do hope at least it will increase the understanding and awareness that section 3 is a needless mechanism to actually police.”
“The commander in Porto basically said that he has a much higher level of trust in the ability of his police force to use their skills and training to detect supply and trafficking, which would be the equivalent of what we would use section 15 and section 23 for. Members of that police force are not using and abusing people who are struggling with addiction in the hope that they might find another crime. When we think of section 3 we need to be very clear that we are not removing stop and search powers in relation to the supply, trafficking and intent around larger crimes. It is actually just that basic. Comparing our section 3 to the drugs Act in the UK, theirs is a bit more onerous but ours is actually a bit more harmful in terms of how it is laid out.”
“The rest of the drugs Act can remain intact. It is only in relation to possession for personal use, and it is not even the stop and search power; it is the possession piece that is named. On section 15 and section 23, section 15 makes it an offence in relation to supply, in relation to trafficking and in relation to those bigger offences that the police say is what they are more focused on, so why are they not using section 15? The bar is higher when we take section 15 and section 23 in relation to stop and search. In the evidence that came before the drugs committee over the last while we had several contributions from people from the police forces of the UK, Canada and Portugal and they all said the same, especially the one from Porto.”
“Imagine for a moment in the 1980s or 1990s, or whatever decade, when you were younger. If you or your friends or people you know were in possession of drugs even all the way back then, the section 3 conviction for possession is still on their record. It could have been £20 worth of what would have been cannabis at the time, before weed was really a thing in Ireland, in terms of possession. When they go for jobs, promotions, travel or anything else, that comes back under the section 3 category. Section 3 is so dangerous in relation to people's lives and how they can progress. It stays on their record. Having a stop and search power such as that has such a negative impact and consequence on people's lives. To remove section 3 as it relates to stop and search does not remove stop and search powers in the drugs Act.”
“For me, this is a really low expectation in terms of policing in Ireland and especially in relation to the fact that we know policing decisions impact certain communities more than others. I grew up being stopped and searched and it created a very negative precedent for the relationship between young people in our communities and An Garda Síochána. Stop and search is used extensively. Each year, on average there are over 3,000 people before the District Court in relation to section 3 possession. That is a lot of people being stopped for possession, and they are the ones who have been prosecuted. If they are found to be in possession and receive a conviction, when it comes to Garda vetting and how that is logged, it is in the same category as rape and murder when a person's Garda vetting comes back.”
“I was not here at the beginning of the conversation. I apologise for anything that is repeated. Whatever about the other removals, in relation to section 3, in terms of further cementing what is already a bad law in relation to section 3 stop and search powers, in Ireland, the section 3 stop and search power within the drugs Act is used and abused to profile, harass and have a very low bar for policing. It is not necessary to have any sort of suspicion or evidence that somebody is in possession of a substance. In fact, it has been used, as admitted by An Garda Síochána in numerous committees, to find other crimes that are unrelated to drugs possession. They are effectively using the idea that a person may be in possession of drugs for personal use to stop and search people in the hope they find other crimes.”
“I ask the Minister, between this Stage and when we meet again, to look at how we can put in some preventative measures in the legislation to ensure we do not get to the point where we are looking at the worst-case scenario of asking if there should be an offence if someone is in contravention with the legislation.”
“However, I would much prefer the Minister to be coming back to the Chamber with some of the more preventative measures that protects from abuse, that looks for that judicial approval, that looks at name and what the rank of garda is in terms of when there is two eyes on a piece of biometric identification. It is about starting here at this worst-case scenario where there has been an abuse and asking where we can walk back in the legislation to make sure we protect everybody from such an abuse. I referred earlier to some other countries. When we look at the Dutch police using financial incentives to encourage people, they are all very serious instances where technologies have been abused.”
“Briefly, I agree about creating offences for things that potentially could be human error but the problem is that the ones where it is not human error can have a very serious consequence on the lives of people considering where we see these types of technologies being used. Going as far as creating an offence here is because of the carve-outs that exist in other places. When we look in particular at the information in Article 26(10) about requiring judicial approval for the use of technology, that creates a safeguard before the potential for any abuse or anything in contravention with the Act or the legislation. As those preventative measures have not been put into the legislation, that is why my amendment exists here.”
“I am not one for creating offences for everything but because other safeguards do not exist in relation to the fact that this will be identification, ultimately, and that identification will be used by the courts, we should ensure there are deterrents in how people may use that analysis and that we also protect the integrity of An Garda Síochána by ensuring technologies are not misused. We see the use of these technologies being abused in all other countries and counterparts. To make the assumption that they are not open to abuse here would be wrong. This amendment simply strengthens the Bill in that regard.”
“Regardless of whether we call it biometric analysis or biometric identification, identification will happen and court cases will happen. Our point is that because of that, we still need to understand whether the principal use of the Bill is for criminal investigation. Moreover, due to the ability to misuse such technology in such harmful ways as we have seen in other jurisdictions around Europe, it would be wrong of us not to acknowledge the protection needed to ensure that if someone misuse or contravenes the section, he or she would be guilty of an offence.”
“In the Netherlands, Dutch police have allegedly used financial incentives to encourage people to share private surveillance footage with police for biometric analysis as a way to evade national laws. The AI Act sought to address these abuses, for example by categorising biometric identification systems as high-risk technologies and recognising the potential impact of the Act by utilising a novel term in biometric analysis to describe instances of biometric identification, clearly not aligning with the safeguards in the Act. We introduce this amendment in that context by making the use of biometric systems in contravention of the provisions of this Bill and the code of practice an offence. We firmly recognise the seriousness of such misuse or abuse.”
“This amendment seeks to strengthen the protections against the abuse of making the use of these technologies in contravention of section 43C(1) an offence. Research from European Digital Rights in 2021 into the rise of biometric mass surveillance in the EU found examples of misuse that we should be aware of. In Germany, authorities deployed facial recognition systems outside of LGBTQ+ venues, religious venues, doctors' surgeries and lawyers' offices without any legitimate justification, with a disproportionate deployment of such technologies against marginalised groups. In Poland, the Government has been accused of using spyware with the capability to surveil people's biometric data.”
“The new Part 6A inserted by this Bill outlines procedures around the use of biometric identification systems by gardaí. The Bill also provides in the newly inserted Part 8A for a code of practice to be established in relation to the application of Part 6A. Section 43C(1) states that, "A member of Garda personnel shall not carry out biometric analysis other than in accordance with this Part and any applicable code of practice." However, there is no consequence for the misuse of biometric technologies. As we have outlined, the safeguards in place for the application of biometric identification systems under the AI Act are not replicated here. We are not bound by those protections due to the carve-out in Recital 40 and in the absence of these safeguards, these systems are simply open to misuse.”
“It would be good to have further insight and understanding as to why it is against the principle of the Bill. It is important to have it on the record regarding the intent of the amendment with the intention of coming back on Report Stage to rectify where it is deemed as not being aligned with the principle of the Bill.”
“If the output from biometric recognition systems deployed by the Garda are used as evidence in the course of a criminal investigation, how has the subject of that investigation not been identified as part of the use of those systems? The system in the Bill gives powers to two members of An Garda Síochána - any rank - and the output is good for principal purpose. The system outlined in the AI Act requires rights, impact assessments from the deployers of the biometric systems and judicial approval for the use of the technology, with that approval being subject to judicial review and many more safeguards. The Bill, as it stands, provides for two gardaí of any rank. I raise the fact that this was ruled out of order because it is not aligned with the principle of the Bill.”
“I will speak briefly to section 8, particularly in relation to the crux of the topic in relation to our amendment that was ruled out of order. We will look to submit a similar amendment. It was deemed that our amendment was against the principle of the Bill. Our amendment provided that the output of biometric recognition systems would not be used as a principal purpose. The only logic that we can think of as to why our amendment was ruled out of order is that the Bill intends for the results of biometric analysis to be used as principal purpose in the course of criminal investigations. That fundamentally undermines the assertion in the definitions of the Bill that biometric analysis does not include biometric identification.”
“Actually, I would say that making sure we are actually naming it for what it is gives strength to those situations where someone is identified through biometric identification, because we are not creating a get-out clause in the legislation that that is not what it is. I accept that the removal of that phrase, on its own, would not be sufficient in terms of the layout of the Bill. I leave the discussion probably even more convinced than I was when I came in that "biometric analysis" is biometric identification. I will return to that in more appropriate amendments at another stage.”
“To remove the item that says this is not biometric identification, does that mean if I am a barrister, which I am not, and this is probably something the Minister has considered, and I go to court with a piece of legislation that says "This is not biometric identification," and a case is being made against me that I have been identified through biometric analysis, does the law not create a scenario for me where my identification has been obtained in ways that are not actually captured in legislation? Do we end up actually risking the integrity of the cases we are speaking about today where serious crime is happening? What if someone says their biometric analysis was misused to identify them because the legislation said this is not biometric identification?”
“I understand the reason people might believe this is for the protection of people. Fair enough, the other amendment would not make sense but actually the purpose of this amendment was to understand what people's understanding of biometric information was. On Report Stage, all amendments will line up, but we are only on Committee Stage. It is helpful to have that understanding before we start defining things.”
“As Senator Higgins said, a name is not biometric data. Biometric analysis has to be biometric analysis of biometric data against biometric data. They are like for like, they are a comparison - an analysis of the two that results in identification. It is not to weaken the safety or to create a sense of a lack of safety or that we do not want to ensure there is a reduction in crime or victimisation; it is to make sure that when legislation is created, it is clear and does what it is meant to do and does not disproportionately impact people in other ways. Surveillance creeps in. We can start off with the stuff that can get people emotional, and understandably so, around the protection of children or other people. That can be a response in which we create legislation. I understand the intent of that.”
“It is important to say that when we talk about safety, serious crime or child sexual abuse, often it can be presented in this way that everybody does not care about that because you want to make sure that a piece of legislation is doing what it says it is doing. Everyone cares about the safety of people, about victims and about reducing victimisation. It is important to say that. When somebody analyses a piece of legislation to ensure it is good legislation, it is not to reduce that concern. We have to remember that people are sometimes misidentified by biometric data analysis. If a person's biometric analysis is being compared, this cannot be analysis unless it is being compared against other biometric analysis because then what are you comparing? A face is not compared against a name; that is not a comparison.”