Mr. Derek Priestley:

That is fair enough. I imagine in an offence involving an assault or some kind of affray, of course the member will know because he or she was there. That is fine but the focus previously, and the basis for this legislation is complaints of sexual assault being made. That is our concern. In one sense the pendulum has swung from no reaction to overreaction by the organisation. We are looking to rebalance that in terms of procedural processes. We are suggesting that if certain offences are going to be investigated only by An Garda Síochána, gardaí will not inform the suspect because there is a risk that evidence will be tampered with or destroyed, for example. Gardaí have powers of arrest for questioning. In that period, the investigation will move very fast. Gardaí will seize evidence and so forth. The military police have no such role, function or statutory power. A garda might discreetly say to a local assistant provost marshal that there is a concern about somebody but is he or she legally entitled to do that? There is a doubt about that. That is what we are pointing towards there. Members of the Defence Forces who are responsible for suppressing crime, as it is called in the Act, are not being told that gardaí are investigating people. How can we then expect the individual to inform his or her commanding officer of that? That is the area we are pointing to. We are not suggesting for one second that a suspect who is fully aware should not keep his or her commanding officer informed. Of course, we would support that. We are just saying it may not be possible. The way the legislation is written puts the onus directly on the individual rather than the investigating authority, whoever that might be, and that is wrong.