Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 5 July 2023

Select Committee on Justice and Equality

Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022: Committee Stage

Photo of Patrick CostelloPatrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:
“(c) a recording device that is remotely controlled, including a device affixed to or part of an unmanned aerial vehicle operating in and recording—
(i) a public place, or

(ii) any other place—
(I) under a power of entry authorised by law,

(II) to which he or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,

(III) in which he or she is present for the purposes of the performance of his or her functions as such a member,”.

Section 9(1)(a) refers to instances where cameras can only be used in a place where, essentially, a garda is entitled to be. Section 9(1)(b) allows for the camera to be placed on an animal and then to be used in a place where a garda is entitled to be. Section 9 (1)(c) provides for the use of a drone but does not contain any of the caveats contained in the two preceding paragraphs. It is very important to put those caveats in because if someone managing a crowd control situation launches a drone that is hovering above that crowd, lots of other things will be filmed. That drone could be filming, and essentially be present in and searching, a private home. That would be the case in a suburban environment. That would not be a public place, a place under a power of entry authorised by law or a place to which An Garda Síochána was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be. It would also not be a place in which a garda would be present for the purposes or performance of his or her function as such a member of the force. However, the drone would still be there and would be searching.

The caveats we allow to underline the fact that these cameras should be operated in a place where gardaí are already legally entitled to be should be inserted in section 9(1)(c). At a minimum, the section as proposed runs the risk of contributing to an illegal search that will later be thrown out by the courts, undermining the legislation as a result.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.