Mr. Se?n Guerin:

A couple of things could be said in answer to that. The first is that there have been numerous challenges to the constitutionality of asset seizure legislation generally. The principle is now well established that, on proof to the civil standard that assets represent the proceeds of crime, it is entirely constitutional for them to be seized. There are obviously questions of procedural fairness, and if there are maybe two themes underlying the submission by the Bar Council, the first is that there would be a strong preference for the exercise of powers to interfere with property rights to be judicially authorised. That touches on the question Senator Ruane asked earlier. There is obviously a necessity in cases of urgency for orders to be made by police authorities in general terms or by the bureau in the specific case of proceeds of crime, but the Bar Council would take the view that urgency is essentially a question of the amount of time necessary for an application to be made to court. That is obviously a possible area of concern.

We have also raised an issue with the breadth and general terms in which the information-sharing powers are phrased. At this stage it is probably more a matter of European data protection law than Irish constitutional law. Again, it touches on the question of protection of rights that Senator Ruane raised.

The only other issue relates to the question of the shortening of the period for the final disposal order to be made. The submission we made in that respect is that, while there may be a case for shortening the period from seven years, in principle it might make sense to align the period with the general limitation period in the ordinary civil law.