Mr. Seamus Nolan:

I thank the Chairman and Senator Gallagher for this opportunity. We have many concerns in relation to the GSOC proposals, which I am going to summarise because there are so many. I do not want to eat into all of the Senator's time.

If we start with head 170(1), we have been severely criticised as an organisation with regard to the issuing of search warrants, which was highlighted very significantly under theDamache ruling, with which some people will be familiar. That prevents or prohibits the entry into premises based on warrants issued by the organisation of An Garda Síochána. The proposal under head 170(1) is that this now gives that authority to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and to its own authorised officers to issue that search warrant, which is completely contrary to the existing case law and legislation. We believe this now contravenes the Constitution and impacts the human rights and legal entitlements of any occupant of a premises identified as a Garda premises.

One of the main issues we are looking at there, and I know they were unforeseen, is that the Covid-19 pandemic found some of our members and personnel working at home. There is no definition of "Garda premises". Does that include the homes of our members? That is a complete contradiction to the inviolability of the home and dwelling house enshrined in the Constitution.

We must not ever lose sight of the fact investigations of an individual are what these are about. This is not about investigation of an organisation. As Mr. Comyns said in his opening statement, the individuals are the people in whom we are invested by investigating some of the activities and allegations against them. We treat those people with the same respect as we do any person we are investigating. It is important we are given the same respect by the legislation that is proposed here.

Head 170(3) deals with a whole lot of different issues around the notification of the Garda Commissioner. The Commissioner then is implicit in implied consent. He or she becomes in effect the witness for the prosecution. Under head 170(6) we have data protection concerns. Under head 170(8), we have search concerns around implications of the outcome of the searches.

We believe the employment law conditions are contravened by head 171(2) and that our employment conditions are completely ignored. There is no written documentation on the notification of inspection. There is nothing the person under investigation can subsequently examine to see and test for constitutionality, legality, proportionality or even proper grounding. Under head 171(3) there is an implied assumption that a person has information to disclose without concentrating on the fact that information can be demanded.

Finally, head 172(2) is silent on anonymous complaints and false, malicious or vexatious complaints. It is silent on them all. There is an assumption all the way through the legislation and the heads that the Garda members are guilty until investigation is complete. It is the presumption of guilt as opposed to a presumption of innocence that we find absolutely abhorrent. There is much more but I am conscious of eating into the time of all the other participants.