Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

The four amendments proposed to sections 21 and 24 of the Bill appear to be aimed at requiring applications for warrants for re-arrest to be heard by a Circuit Court judge rather than a District Court judge, as has been the law for almost 25 years. No one has ever drawn to my attention any difficulty in having these applications heard by the District Court. I repeat the point I made earlier about the impact the Fine Gael proposals would have on the workload of the Circuit Court in terms of the timetabling of trials for serious cases. In addition, District Court judges are more accessible and there are far more of them, which is a major consideration given the urgency of some re-arrest applications. Thus, the amendments offer no added benefit in terms of efficiency. We are all of the same view that people should not be detained any longer than is absolutely necessary, and Circuit Courts, as the Senator knows, do not operate as frequently as District Courts. Given that the system has worked well for 25 years and we have had no representations about this from the legal profession, I believe we should leave it the way it is.

The additional section proposed in amendment No. 33 would create serious logistical difficulties for the Garda. We must keep in mind that the criminal investigation will be ongoing while the Garda is applying for judicial authority to extend the period of detention for suspects in custody or for re-arrest warrants. Requiring the Garda to establish that the Circuit Court is unavailable before it can resort to the District Court is simply introducing a step which will act as a hindrance to the investigation and result in much more work for the Garda. As has already been said, the District Court has been dealing with extension of time applications and re-arrest applications for many years and I see no necessity to change that.

Apart from logistical difficulties with a system under which the Garda must establish that the Circuit Court is not available before resorting to the District Court, I see several drafting problems with this proposed section. Does the phrase "this Part" refer to the 1939, 1984, 1996 or 2007 Act? There are no applications under the part referred to in the Deputy's amendment, which concerns amendments to other Acts. Therefore, if I were inclined go down this route, which I am not, individual amendments would be required to the 1939, 1984, 1996 and 2007 Acts.