Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I am disappointed by the attitude of the Minister in that nowadays most cameras are electronic devices in any case. I presume that gardaí, in their day-to-day activity, must have to sign off on the use of cameras and video cameras. This may involve obtaining permission from a senior officer. There is obviously a high threshold set for most of the surveillance devices in question. Perhaps there is a flaw in my amendment in this regard. The use of a camera or video camera, for a designated purpose, might have to be signed out with the permission of a superintendent, inspector or officer of another grade. Doing so would attest to the fact that a device has not been interfered with and records the correct date. We are not trying to prevent the operations of gardaí who, in the normal course of events, happen upon a robbery or encounter, by chance, a suspect they have been looking for and use their mobile telephone, for example, to capture information. If the new TETRA system were running properly and radios had the facility to take photographs, as is the case with some police communications systems, the information gleaned could be used for the purpose to which I refer.

My amendment was not intended to hamper An Garda in any way but to ensure that ongoing activity would be facilitated. In this regard, consider the example of a stake-out where it is known that a criminal gang or individual is planning a crime in respect of which some type of recording device must be put in place – for example, to record movements to and from a specific location. This is not covered. Monitoring and observing require personal attestation whereas, with this Bill, we are trying to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure that ongoing surveillance will not breach the right to privacy while at the same time allowing the Garda to carry out its functions properly. If this balance is struck, the Garda could use the information gleaned in a court case to ensure that the convictions desired by the public are made.

I am concerned that the use of cameras and video cameras will not be admissible in court or that there might be a challenge if they are used on an ongoing basis on the grounds that they are not authorised surveillance devices covered by this legislation. I might be wrong. I was trying to be helpful by tabling my three related amendments in this regard.

See this speech in context