Seanad debates

Wednesday, 10 May 2006

Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill 2005: Report and Final Stages.

 

11:00 am

Photo of Frank FaheyFrank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated it was unlikely he would be in a position to accept these amendments. He consulted the Attorney General on them. The effect of amendments Nos. 3 and 5 would be to delete the provision that an account information or account monitoring order made for criminal investigations in the State or an EU member state would be effective as if it were an order of the District Court.

The effect of the declaration of amendment No. 15 would be to delete the reference to an order made for the freezing of evidence to have effect if it were an order of the High Court. The legal advice received on the matter is that it is an important provision for any of these orders to have effect as if it were an order of the District Court or the High Court. This means that it would be an offence, for which a sanction would apply, not to comply with the order.

The orders concerned could be considered to impinge on people's rights and it is not appropriate that such powers should be granted to an individual judge operating without the backing of the court. The order must be made by the court and not by an individual. The provision, as it stands in the Bill, emphasises the judicial nature of this function and ensures that the judge concerned has no doubt that he or she is acting judicially when such an order is made. The reference to the District Court and the High Court in these provisions is important and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.