Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

This amendment has been discussed for a time and there are other more pressing amendments to be discussed. While I welcome the fact that the Minister has moved somewhat with his amendment No. 33, it is still the case that the statement from a Garda superintendent is admissible as evidence, yet in section 2A(2), evidence given by such a member in the proceedings is not admissible in any criminal proceedings against the applicant. I find it strange that it can be used as evidence in one part of the proceedings and is prohibited from being used as evidence in the next stage. It now seems that the opinion of a garda under the rank of chief superintendent is not admissible as evidence. A member of the Garda Síochána can make a presentation but the suggestion is that only evidence from a Garda superintendent is admissible as evidence. This seems to be a contradiction and will force the chief superintendents, assistant Garda Commissioners and the Garda Commissioner to attend court on a more frequent basis. I question whether this is a justifiable use of their time. I am still of the opinion that we should not proceed with this section and that even though the Minister stated that the media would have a role to ensure that publication of evidence is not prejudicial, the court must be tied because it controls the evidence in front of it and if a newspaper publishes material prejudicial to the accused person's right to a fair trial, this can be captured. Even though I have a problem with the section I am still of the opinion that amendments Nos. 35 and 36 should proceed as they would make the legislation stronger.

See this speech in context