Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The phrase "that it is evidence" does not mean that it is conclusive evidence which a court must follow or to which it must attach a degree of weight. The phrase in question merely means that it is evidence along those lines. If, at the end of the argument, the court is to inquire whether it has any evidence that the prosecution's case is correct, the answer will be that it has that provided by the chief superintendent.

I agree that there is a difference, in principle, between opinion as to past fact and opinion as to possible future developments. The courts must operate on that basis. If an engineer states that a building will fall down unless remedial work is carried out, that is an opinion, based on certain considerations, regarding a future development. Opinion evidence does not have to be confined to past facts. Opinion as to past facts is probably less admissible than opinion relating to future hypotheses.

I will reconsider the position regarding deleting the word "considered" because I accept Deputy Howlin's point in that regard. However, I do not accept the proposition that this is somehow being made into coercive, conclusive or overwhelming evidence that the court's function in this under the Constitution will be abrogated by a chief superintendent coming before it and stating his belief that a case must be decided in his favour. I do not believe the court would construe the meaning of the provision in this way. Constitutional construction must be held and I am not contending that a chief superintendent may oblige a court to hold in his favour by simply tendering a statement to it.

See this speech in context