John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

As Senator Bacik said, the amendment is a variation of a similar amendment proposed on Committee Stage in the Dáil. It was considered by the Attorney General's office but is regarded as unnecessary. "Person" in the context of section 7 of the Bill could never be interpreted as including persons in general. Under section 7, the reference to placement in temporary custody under section 6 can only refer to a person who is lawfully in the custody of the Garda Síochána, as the word "prisoner" is already defined. Section 6 makes clear the persons who may be held for the purposes of section 7. Section 6(2) refers to a person who is lawfully in the custody of the Garda Síochána. "Person" in this instance only applies to somebody who is lawfully in custody under the existing legislative provisions. It does not and cannot create any new custody. This provision operates within the limitations of existing legislative provisions relating to custody and does not create any new categories of persons in custody. The provisions in the Bill relate only to the temporary custody of a person or prisoner in the context of a transfer of that custody from the Irish Prison Service to the Garda Síochána or vice versa. The individuals concerned are already in custody. The Bill does not create custody, it merely allows for a transfer of that custody on a temporary basis.

While I understand what the amendment seeks to achieve, I consider it unnecessary. Such an amendment might unintentionally create an ambiguity as the term "person who is lawfully in custody" could suggest all sorts of persons, for example, a person in military custody, whereas the section is only concerned with persons in Garda custody. I oppose the amendment.