Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:“(8) Where property is seized and detained under subsection (1) or (2), an application to the Court for an interim order or an interlocutory order in respect of the property shall be made by the bureau officer concerned as soon as he or she has enough evidence to make such an application.”.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton. I am glad to see him in the Chamber.

Let me explain the context of the amendment. It arises from a concern I expressed on Second Stage about the extension of powers of seizure and detention of goods to officers of the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, and the Chief Bureau Officer. I said we needed to scrutinise these provisions very carefully to ensure adequate safeguards were provided for parties whose goods would be seized. We should all be aware that it represents a very significant expansion of powers and a break from the current regime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 which requires High Court supervision in the seizure and detention of goods. We should be conscious of the current provisions in the 1996 Act for the granting of an interim order which only empowers the High Court to permit the detention of goods for 21 days. Section 3 of the Bill purports to extend that power to the Chief Bureau Officer. There is, of course, importantly, recourse for an aggrieved party to go to the High Court to contest this, but, nonetheless, it places, perhaps, an unfair onus on an aggrieved party and does not allow for automatic High Court or any court supervision of the powers of seizure and detention.

As I said on Second Stage, I accept absolutely the need for the Bill which we are supporting. However, we want to ensure it is sufficiently robust to withstand any challenge. We are concerned about the lack of an obligation on the CAB to use the existing court order regime where it gathers sufficient evidence during the 21 day period to go to court before its expiry. As I see it, the problem is that the Bill does not place any obligation on the CAB to curtail the 21 day period. It seems the default position will be, if section 3 is to be used, for goods to be held for 21 days before the normal provisions of the 1996 Act kick in and before the CAB goes the High Court for an interim order or an interlocutory order.

The purpose of the amendment is to insert a new subsection (8) which reads: "Where property is seized and detained ... an application to the Court for an interim order or an interlocutory order in respect of the property shall be made by the bureau officer concerned as soon as he or she has enough evidence to make such an application”. As I said previously, it is similar to the power of detention under the Criminal Justice Act 1984 where the Garda is obliged to release or charge somebody once it has sufficient evidence one way or another, without waiting necessarily for the expiry of the maximum period of detention for which it is allowed to keep a person. We are putting forward the amendment as a suggested mechanism to ensure there an additional safeguard would be in place.