Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

I strongly but sadly support the legislation. I use the term "strongly" because I believe the legislation is essential in the war against organised crime and gangland terror. However, I use the term "sadly" to note that society has come to the point at which such legislation is required. The Minister will be fully aware that the courts have been vigilant in the protection of human rights in a series of decisions. Human rights are enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann and in the European Convention on Human rights which we incorporated into law in 2003. In the Supreme Court decision, The People (DPP) v. Kenny [1990], Mr. Justice Finlay stated that "the correct principle is that evidence obtained by invasion of the constitutional personal rights of a citizen must be excluded unless the Court is satisfied that either the act of constituting the breach of constitutional rights was committed unintentionally or accidentally, or is satisfied that there were extraordinarily excusing circumstances which justify the admission of the evidence in its (the Court's) discretion."

This legislation will no doubt interfere with the constitutional rights of accused persons. It should only do so in necessary circumstances and in a very careful way. Checks and balances have been referred to by my colleagues concerning complaints and monitoring by a High Court judge is essential in this regard. Further, on Committee Stage we must closely examine questions with regard to the admissibility of such evidence. We must especially ensure that an accused person is shown the full deck of cards. It is fine to hold one's cards close to one's chest and proceed with a prosecution. However, once the cards are laid down by way of evidence the accused is entitled to see the full pack of cards, such that he or she can properly protect or vindicate his or her own name. I have no difficulty with surveillance, especially against some of the criminals of who have committed heinous crimes throughout the country but we have a very good system of criminal justice which should not suffer simply because of a very small and nasty minority of people determined to do bad throughout the country.

I compliment the Minister on introducing the legislation because it is essential. I am aware from events in my constituency, and the Garda have directly informed me, that without the use of a significant degree of surveillance evidence the detection and prosecution of criminals, especially in cases related to drug and gang crime, would not be possible. There is no question that surveillance evidence must be allowed in court.

The mechanism and architecture of the Bill makes much sense. I wish to see most if not all of the authorisations coming from the District Court although I am less agreeable to a superintendent issuing such an authorisation. I appreciate this may only take place for 72 hours and in exceptional circumstances but they should only apply in exceptional cases and should take place primarily through the District Court.

I urge the Minister to closely examine sections 14 and 15 on Committee Stage relating to the admissibility of evidence and the disclosure of information to the accused respectively. I seek clarity in the Bill at a later stage if possible that such evidence will not be used in any form of civil proceedings such as matrimonial or commercial proceedings. The measures should never be available for such proceedings and should strictly be limited to the most serious of crimes, which, I understand, is the Minister's intention.

Other Members have spoken of the framework for complaints to the referee judge and, ultimately, the Government will have this monitored by a judge of the High Court, which is essential. The accused must be given equal access to information. I am not saying that in all cases they should know the entire modus operandi——

See this speech in context