Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

We are dealing here with important safeguards long since established on the provision of evidence when dealing with the proof of a criminal organisation but the Minister, by virtue of his amendment No. 2a, is going in the opposite direction to that I am proposing in amendment No. 3.

I would be concerned about the absence of appropriate safeguards. I do not wish to impugn in any way the professionalism or the rank of any ordinary member of the Garda Síochána but where we are dealing with the provision of proof of the existence of a criminal organisation, the standards should be high. In confining the provision of evidence to a senior officer we are not casting any disrespect towards an ordinary member of the Garda Síochána but reflecting the importance of the officer, which has long since been established, even in cases where we have had to resort to the Special Criminal Court or non-jury court, and the importance of the office of the senior member of the force. Also, we are acknowledging the seriousness of the offence by ensuring that the evidence is tendered by a senior Garda officer.

The Minister can correct me if I am incorrect but there will not necessarily be a witness present when this evidence is being tendered as to the proof of the existence of a criminal organisation. The Minister does not have any requirement in the section in terms of the experience of the officer and his amendment No. 2a, includes evidence to be tendered, and presumably accepted by way of proof, by a former ordinary member of the Garda Síochána who could be long since retired or engaged in other work, which is often the case with former members of the Garda Síochána. I would be concerned that the Minister does not have any requirement of expertise or standard of experience and because of that I am somewhat concerned about the relaxation of the safeguards. The Minister can take it this will be tested in the highest courts. It is important that the measure is sound from a constitutional basis, that both experience and expertise would be a prerequisite and that the safeguards are such, having regard to the fact that this is proof of evidence, that we would acknowledge a long-standing procedure which is that the evidence would be tendered by a senior officer, a chief superintendent. I acknowledge what the Minister said earlier about the working garda who is on the front line. Nevertheless, we need to reflect the importance of the seniority of the rank and the gravity of the offence. It would not be appropriate to accept the evidence of officers who might not have the necessary expertise, given the consequences.

See this speech in context