Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

I also have some concerns about the subsection, particularly in light of the Supreme Court ruling in the Shortt case last week where the evidence of the gardaí on the facts was questioned as to whether it was the truth and the whole truth. The fact that a chief superintendent is designated in the subsection implies that a lesser mortal, such as a superintendent, an inspector or a sergeant, may not be up to the case. I question the reasoning for this designation. The subsection states that the chief superintendent, "believes that refusal of the application is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person". Does this mean that a chief superintendent, an inspector or a sergeant actually considers it necessary and that the chief superintendent states in court that it is considered necessary without having to say at which rank this decision was made? It might be necessary to bolster this with the chief superintendent having to perform a comprehensive review of the file in front of him before he states that he personally considers it reasonably necessary, having reviewed the file, that an offence may be committed by this person.

The Garda Síochána has a lot of work to do as a result of the Donegal situation; it cannot be given carte blanche regarding evidence given in court about serious charges. The force must earn again the full respect of the community and we should be careful not to give it carte blanche as stated in the Bill. I acknowledge that the majority of gardaí would take their responsibilities seriously and tell the whole and unvarnished truth. However, we must ensure that the ethos within the Garda Síochána is such that this would be the case for 100% of gardaí.

See this speech in context