Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

In general terms, the Deputy referred to being citizen-friendly and it is important we recognise the work of customs officials is citizen-friendly. If fines are issued successfully, it is because there has been a breach of regulations. We all subscribe to the rule of law in that context.

I will explain to the Deputy the Government's position and the Deputy can explain why he seeks a return to a District Court judge and give us some insight into the Sinn Féin position on this. The amendment gives a customs officer, on reasonable grounds of suspicion, the power to detain goods and conveyances being imported or exported pending the outcome of inquiries and investigations into whether the goods in question are in compliance with the Customs Acts. Section 33(4) provides that a customs officer may detain any goods being imported or exported that he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect might be required as evidence in any criminal proceedings under any enactment other than the Customs Acts and to place such goods in the custody of the Garda Síochána or other appropriate authority for the purpose of such proceedings. Section 33(4) is a new power and is being proposed to cover instances where Customs and Excise officers, in the course of their duties, discover items that, while not in contravention of customs law, could be required as evidence in criminal proceedings involving breaches of other laws. An example would be false passports discovered in a postal consignment. These would not be in contravention of any customs laws but would clearly be evidence of wrongdoing under other legislation and could be required as evidence in criminal proceedings.

The effect of the amendment, if accepted, would be to limit the period of detention of such goods to 30 days and, after each period of 30 days, to require the officer to seek permission from a District Court judge to continue to hold the goods. It is considered that a determination as to whether goods detained under this provision are required as evidence in proceedings would, in the vast majority of cases, be made without undue delay and certainly within the 30-day period proposed in the amendment. However, it would be restrictive and time-consuming to lay down in legislation a requirement to return to the courts on one or more occasions while inquiries were ongoing. On this basis, I do not accept the amendment.