Ms Caitriona Mason:

What the Garda envisages is a warning given over a loudspeaker telling people to move on and that they are in a safe access zone. The concern is that an individual would come to court and say "I was too far away from the loudspeaker. Your loudspeaker was crackly. I didn't hear it. I didn't get it. How do you know I heard it? Prove it." In criminal proceedings, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The OPC saw difficulties with this from a prosecution point of view.

To move on to the Deputy's second point around relay protests, this was the Department's original concern, which was why no temporal or geographical limits were placed on the warning. We had a concern and advice from counsel advising on the scheme involved a concern about what the Deputy said, namely, that protester A comes along, is warned he or she is in a safe access zone, goes down to safe access zone B and is given a warning again. It is not only about the repetitive nature of the protests but also the drain on Garda resources. On foot of the concerns raised by the Garda around the need to include the possible need to include temporal and geographical limits, we have re-engaged with counsel and asked them to consider the interactions. The drafter had already asked counsel to consider the role of the warning vis-à-visthe criminal law. We have now asked counsel to consider whether it is necessary to include temporal and geographical warnings but as we set out from a policy perspective, we do have concerns about including-----