Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

The amendments seek to make it mandatory that all new procedures in the Bill relating to applications to extend the detention period must be heard in the Circuit Court. I am not sure if the Senator appreciates that his amendments would have the effect of splitting jurisdiction in individual cases. The District Court would handle the hearing of the application for the extension of time but the Circuit Court would handle applications as to who would be present or excluded from the proceedings. This would be unworkable.

Senator Regan might suggest that all proceedings be transferred to the Circuit Court. This is not necessary nor is it justified by experience. It would also have the effect of delaying Circuit Court trials. Extension of time applications, by their nature, must be heard urgently and in the Circuit Court this would have the effect of delaying the start of trials and, indeed, could push trials back to the next session. Much good work has been done in improving trial times in the Circuit Court in recent times. The Senator's proposals would give the Circuit Court a much greater role in the extension of time applications and would undo some of the work that has been done in that respect.

Multiple District Court judges are available to every Circuit Court judge. The easy availability of judges is essential where applications must be heard urgently as to the extension of time applications. The Senator might also note that section 30 of the 1939 Act provides for hearings in the District Court only. This has been the case for a very long time and nothing has emerged that suggests we should change the existing arrangement. This arrangement has proved more than adequate. Even at the height of the subversive threat, it was seen to be more than adequate. I see no reason not to continue with the arrangement.

As for the 1997 and 2007 Acts, hearings to extend the periods of detention may be in either the District or Circuit Court. This approach has been taken in the interests of maximising flexibility and operational efficiency. However, almost all of the applications are heard in the District Court. As with the 1939 Act, nothing has emerged to suggest a need to restrict that court's role, which would thereby reduce choice and make the arrangement inflexible and unsuitable in the context of ongoing investigations.