Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 23, to delete lines 42 to 46.

These amendments are grouped together because they all seek to do the same thing with regard to three different detention powers in sections 21, 22 and 23. In all three cases, the amendments seek to delete the Minister's provision stating that no issue as to the lawfulness of the arrest or detention of the person may be raised at an extension of detention hearing. The Minister has already given us a brief rationale for this section. In the course of speaking to an earlier amendment he said the courts have already stated that these issues should only be dealt with in the High Court. It seems somewhat unnecessary in that, generally, these issues are ventilated in full in any case in the High Court, as the Minister said.

However, what has happened is that defence lawyers have understood that they are precluded from raising issues, or at least objection is taken to their raising issues later about the lawfulness of detention, if they have not raised them at the earliest possible opportunity. The Minister will be aware that there has been some case law suggesting that they should raise their objections to the lawfulness of detention and jurisdiction of the court at the earliest possible stage, otherwise they may effectively be precluded from raising them at a later date. At the very least, the prosecution will use against them the fact that they did not raise these points earlier. That is why the issues have been raised.

I am not sure the mischief the Minister speaks about, concerning these hearings being dragged out as a result, is right. Perhaps he might give us a little more information about that. However, I see these provisions he is proposing as being unnecessary. I am simply proposing to delete them because in any case the full ventilation of these issues has to occur before the High Court. It may be difficult, however, for the defence to raise them in the High Court if they have not already raised them at an earlier point. That is why they started to be raised at the extension of detention hearings. Perhaps the Minister can elaborate if there is a particular reason why he is placing these provisions in the Bill.