Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I commend the Minister and his officials on their very efficient and robust response to the judgment. We will support the Bill and I will do my best to facilitate my party's co-operation in concluding this before the recess. The Minister has covered most of the arguments and the importance of warrants, which is fundamental in the proper investigation of crime. In this Bill he has provided for the judgment and the Minister has also acknowledged the forthcoming Law Reform Commission report, which will give us a chance to bring this legislation up to the level of current technology. I have always held the view that the legal system has been slow in responding to the advantages offered by technology, and I hope the Minister will use the opportunity of his response to the Law Reform Commission to drag his former profession a little bit into the 21st century in the use of technology and the Internet in the administration of justice.

I will comment on some issues, particularly in light of the Minister's remarks. He indicated the Director of Public Prosecution is reviewing a number of cases in light of the Supreme Court judgment and that there may be outstanding issues. The system should be aware of the need to ensure that at all times the victims of the crimes should be involved in consultation, and they should not read of a decision being overturned either within the court or in the media. If something happens as a result of the Supreme Court judgment that involves a victim or family of a victim, they should be involved from the outset. It should not come like a bolt from the blue.

I note the Minister's comments on restricting the use of a warrant with regard to the intended commission of an offence. I know he does not have the figures this evening but perhaps in advance of Committee Stage he might provide us, if possible, with the numbers of warrants previously issued with this intent in mind, as opposed to warrants issued after an offence has been committed. Will this impact on the ability of the Garda to collate information or evidence for the processing or preparation of a case? If that is the case, will other powers be furnished to account for that?

More than 100 separate Acts were passed between 1831 and 2008 containing search warrant provisions, with 170 statutory instruments used between 1979 and 2008. They are a common feature of our judicial system. The Minister referred to offences in major legislation which was so important in darker times for the State, and search warrants were a very significant weapon. I welcome that the Minister has acknowledged that the gardaí involved in the cases referred to were acting within their understanding of the law at the time. That is important.

In any redesign of the search warrant procedures, it is important we strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of those suspected of crime. However, crime and criminals are moving much faster than we, as a society, are doing to keep up. The methods of crime and the ability to redefine crime is quite outstanding. We must ensure the tools we use to investigate crime and keep people to account are as flexible and robust as what is demanded. Although I support any move to protect people's rights, it is also important to show we will not choke our ability to investigate crime in doing so. We must not tie the hands of those to whom we entrust our protection and the job of investigating crime with added regulation and administration, particularly in this area. If we did, we could inadvertently hand an advantage to people who seek to act in a criminal way.

The Minister referred briefly to technology, and there are many areas on which one could comment. In this day and age, a District Court judge should be available at any time, even if it is not a judge in the immediate district. There could be electronic communication or "judge on-call" system, although I do not mean to demean the profession. A judge should be available to a garda within a reasonable commute at all times. The Minister has tightened provisions so that only people not below the level of superintendent can further the warrant process. It would be preferable for everybody if a judge could be involved, as he or she would be truly independent in the assessment of a crime. Given that we have so many of them, it is not beyond the possibility that some sort of on-call system should be available in order that a warrant could be signed.

If a judge is not physically present, we should be able to have some kind of judicial interaction through protected electronic signatures. A superintendent may be involved in a case or on a separate stream, but such action should be used in the most limited circumstances. It may not be possible to consider this issue in the Bill but the Minister might examine it in the context of his response to the Law Reform Commission. Perhaps we can involve the Judiciary in a consultation.

I commend the Bill to the House and it covers the judgment. We will support its speedy enactment and I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context