New Garda powers to allow access to mobile phones, changes to ‘stop and search’

allan96

A person who refuses to surrender a password for a mobile phone or other device to gardaí will be committing a crime and could face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to €30,000 under new legislation being unveiled on Monday.

The move comes as more crime has migrated online where it is carried out on phones, computers and other devices protected by personal logins.

Garda sources said the pandemic had accelerated the commission of large numbers of crimes, including minor offences such as low-value drugs transactions, on messaging apps as in-person contact became restricted. They believed that trend would remain long after the pandemic and that the new power was vital to strengthen Garda searches to include access to mobile phones and other devices.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobile-phones-changes-to-stop-and-search-1.4592434?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR31fnsDnnR0dAXPFrn4cjl_K5OESQG5S7AuJ7Pjs06qvkSpeqp6AyeDguc

*nervously clears internet search history *

dilallio

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobile-phones-changes-to-stop-and-search-1.4592434

A person who refuses to surrender a password for a mobile phone or other device to gardaí will be committing a crime and could face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to €30,000 under new legislation being unveiled on Monday.

The move comes as more crime has migrated online where it is carried out on phones, computers and other devices protected by personal logins.

I read this article this morning, and I was wondering if similar laws exist in other European countries.

The article does not go into any detail on what safeguards would be in place to ensure that this would not be abused by the Gardai.

For example, if a suspect had some other embarassing or incriminating content on their device not directly related to why they were under investigation, would this be used to coerce them?

I'm interested in hearing more learned opinions on how this law could work practically.

purplefields

Also from https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobiles-and-other-devices-1141159.html :

Under the new Bill, gardaí will also have the power to arrest and detain a person until the name and other identity details they have supplied to gardaí are verified as genuine. They will also be given new powers to stop and search vehicles, with random stops to be allowed when child abduction or human trafficking cases were being investigated.

Ireland really need some kind of civil liberties organisation like they have in other countries.
After Covid, I can't see myself staying in Ireland for much longer. (Especially now with the corp tax changes and facebook remote working.)

MAJJ

dilallio wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobile-phones-changes-to-stop-and-search-1.4592434




I read this article this morning, and I was wondering if similar laws exist in other European countries.

The article does not go into any detail on what safeguards would be in place to ensure that this would not be abused by the Gardai.

For example, if a suspect had some other embarassing or incriminating content on their device not directly related to why they were under investigation, would this be used to coerce them?

I'm interested in hearing more learned opinions on how this law could work practically.

Is it clear if this is after being arrested or charged?

pioneerpro

MAJJ wrote: »

Is it clear if this is after being arrested or charged?

When told they have a warrant.

Gone to hell in a handcart, etc etc...

TheValeyard

Probably end up in the European Courts with a challenge I'd say.

purplefields

purplefields wrote: »

Also from https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobiles-and-other-devices-1141159.html :


Ireland really need some kind of civil liberties organisation like they have in other countries.
After Covid, I can't see myself staying in Ireland for much longer. (Especially now with the corp tax changes and facebook remote working.)

That would be the ICCL - Irish Council for Civil Liberties

https://www.iccl.ie/

Considering this was just announced today, expect to see something from them after they have reviewed the legislation rather than the headlines about it.

I will say this, I find it unlikely that the whole password thing will pass review. Something, something, you cant be forced to incriminate yourself

Smee_Again

pioneerpro wrote: »

When told they have a warrant.

I might be watching too many US cop dramas but, in general, is it enough to tell the accused(?) that you have a warrant or do you have to give them a physical copy?

MrMusician18

Such powers will only be of use against non sophisticated criminals. Encrochat like phones run parallel operating systems with one touch destruction.

In fact, laws like this will probably increase the use of such software. It may be a double edged sword for investigators where they would've been able to get passwords through social engineering or observation, note when have to contend with evidence destruction.

Jerry Attrick

All sounds good to me.

But then again, I've nothing to hide, and unlike Herrick or the Data Protection Commissioner I don't particularly want to see criminals and fraudsters benefitting from the GDPR and other "privacy is more important that putting scumbags away" legislation.

Robbo

Threads merged on this.

The general scheme of the Bill can be viewed here.

I'd expect that there'll be substantial involvement from civil liberties groups on this as the Bill progresses.

allan96

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

All sounds good to me.

But then again, I've nothing to hide

"nothing to hide" is the wrong approach to it.

purplefields

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

All sounds good to me.

But then again, I've nothing to hide, and unlike Herrick or the Data Protection Commissioner I don't particularly want to see criminals and fraudsters benefitting from the GDPR and other "privacy is more important that putting scumbags away" legislation.

I've got all my private stuff to hide.

0lddog

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Such powers will only be of use against non sophisticated criminals. Encrochat like phones run parallel operating systems with one touch destruction... .

You seem to be very well up in this topic

For myself, I've lost count of the number of email accounts that people tell me I had but I cant remember. Will I get a fine for each account that I cant remember ?

pioneerpro

Smee_Again wrote: »

I might be watching too many US cop dramas but, in general, is it enough to tell the accused(?) that you have a warrant or do you have to give them a physical copy?

Not only is it enough to just tell them, but you don't need a Judge for a search warrant. The Courts of Justice Act 1924 gives Peace Commissioners the power to issue summons and warrant - a nice loophole that the Gardai in Dublin have been abusing for years in terms of getting weekend/late hours warrants with less than two hours turnaround.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/leaving-cert-party-host-told-gardai-get-a-warrant-they-did-and-now-hes-in-court-on-drugs-charge-30123285.html

ratracer

Great!
I think Gardaí should have a lot more powers, but unless the courts and legal system are overhauled also, they are wasting their time, as the legal eagles tend to always find a loop-hole somewhere to get convictions quashed/ overturned/ thrown out, and the judiciary uphold it.

pioneerpro

The saddest thing is the arguments from the hoi polloi on basic questions of governance and society that were indisputably answered centuries ago. Case in point.

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

All sounds good to me.

But then again, I've nothing to hide

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
- Cardinal Richelieu

I don't particularly want to see criminals and fraudsters benefitting from the GDPR and other "privacy is more important that putting scumbags away" legislation.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
- Ben Franklin

pioneerpro

ratracer wrote: »

Great!
I think Gardaí should have a lot more powers, but unless the courts and legal system are overhauled also, they are wasting their time, as the legal eagles tend to always find a loop-hole somewhere to get convictions quashed/ overturned/ thrown out, and the judiciary uphold it.

As with any erasure of civil rights, this only has a chilling effect on the civil liberties and social justice afforded to the ordinary and the innocent. The rich and the criminal classes, by definition, live outside of the normal constraints of civil society and its associated justice system.

punisher5112

If it's used wrongly for personal vendetta then no it's a bad thing but if it's done legally and within the correct procedure set out to protect people's personal data etc and not leaked or so on when that person has committed no crime.


If this can be used to catch criminals, to disrupt their gains from crime and all that then I'm happy....
To be honest we should be hearing of huge raids daily and crime gangs squashed and all assets removed.

Tacitus Kilgore

Seems to be soemwhat pointed at roaming burglary gangs and human trafficking?

Head 10 provides a power for a Garda to stop and search a vehicle and any persons in the
vehicle where the member has reasonable grounds to suspect that a specified serous or terrorist
offence is occurring or is about to occur for evidence of that offence. The Garda does not need
to reasonably suspect that the vehicle or person being searched is involved in the offence. This
power allows for random searches, for instance at roadblocks. The power can be exercised in
a public place or any other place where the member is, at that time, entitled to be.

Although, unless I'm mistaken, the above pretty much gives carte blanche to search anyone and or any vehicle at any time - whether suspected of being involved in a schedule 2 crime or not - sched 2 is quite detailed but seeing as the gardai don't need to consider you a suspect in order to stop and search - i would read it as open to serious abuse?

pioneerpro

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Seems to be soemwhat pointed at roaming burglary gangs and human trafficking?

It's somewhat pointed at parallel construction based on the Graham Dwyer case about to fall apart.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/concern-over-graham-dwyer-phone-records-case-a-crisis-of-state-s-own-making-1.4412864

There are over 18,000 requests for data retention information every year, 98% of these by Gardai. All of these are incompatible with EU law, with no oversight.

Yurt2

If there was proper judicial oversight (which let's be real, there probably won't be) this wouldn't be much of an issue. I think I recall an ICCL report where they dug into judicial oversight of bugging or wiretapping (I think, something to do with privacy at its heart), and they came to the conclusion that a nominated High Court judge does a quick scan of the previous year's snooping approved by the Garda Comish, does a plaintive check and rubberstamps it and is out the gap in a half day.

On balance, such powers are probably needed, but the Gardai (and in fairness most police forces and intelligence agencies) are maximalists, and will press for as much power as they can get away with without too much thought for civil liberties concerns.

I do think we have an oversight issue and a presumption that just because the Gardai say they need it, it should be given to them no questions asked. AGS are just like any organisation, yes there are outstanding committed people of integrity in there, but there will also be dunderheads, incompetents and even the malevolent by the law of averages.

ratracer

Interesting that the first thoughts of commentators on here is that the gardai will abuse the powers/ innocents will suffer etc……. I must be from a different time/ place.

Witcher

Gardai already have this power when executing a Section 48 warrant.

Jerry Attrick

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

All sounds good to me.

But then again, I've nothing to hide, and unlike Herrick or the Data Protection Commissioner I don't particularly want to see criminals and fraudsters benefitting from the GDPR and other "privacy is more important that putting scumbags away" legislation.

There’s always one.

Give me a copy of the keys to your house please, I’d like to have a rummage around. I know you won’t mind as you’ve nothing to hide.

pioneerpro

ratracer wrote: »

Interesting that the first thoughts of commentators on here is that the gardai will abuse the powers/ innocents will suffer etc……. I must be from a different time/ place.

Really? Because the Mainstream media, the State, and the Policing Commission thought abuse of Gardai power and inherent corruption was so endemic in the organisation they had no choice other than to bring in someone from the PSNI as head of the unit.

Susan O'Keefe in that noted bastion of wishy-washy liberal thinking, the Sunday Business Post, makes a very succinct and deeply disturbing summary of exactly how incredibly serious the scale of the problem has been over the last 30 years.

https://www.businesspost.ie/crime/susan-okeeffe-garda-anti-corruption-unit-is-decades-overdue-84676158

Hell, lets take a recognised authority in Ireland in this area instead:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40264043.html

A top legal expert has said it is “doubtful” An Garda Síochána will address the threat posed by internal corruption in spite of a recent hard-hitting report by the Garda Inspectorate.

Professor Dermot Walsh, who specialises in criminal justice and policing, said that while the report was comprehensive and incisive, he felt the recommendations were less impressive and could reflect a “resignation” at the prospects of real change.

The inspectorate’s report flagged a range of serious corruption issues, including: A “poor grasp” in the force of the threat posed by gardaí abusing their power for sexual gain; the threat posed by inadequate vetting procedures, and the need for a properly empowered and resourced Garda Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU).

In a lengthy analysis of the report, Prof Walsh said: "Given the resilience of internal garda corruption over the years, it is doubtful that the report will prove to be a gamechanger.”

The professor of law at University of Kent said shelves “were stacked” with the findings and recommendations of many reports on individual instances and systemic forms of corruption.

He said that despite all the official commitments and programmes of action for reform, the contents of the inspectorate’s report suggested that there had been “little actual progress”.

The academic said the topic and recommendations of the report had a “depressingly familiar ring”, which he said included abuse of garda powers.

He said it was a “poor reflection” on garda management that “basic and banal” recommendations from the inspectorate had to be made in 2021.

Prof Walsh said that a “more profound culture shift” will be required to deliver meaningful change.

In relation to concerns on abuse of garda discretion, he said the inspectorate’s recommendations “do not inspire confidence that change will be realised on the ground”.

So the question isn't 'Are the Gardai systemically corrupt' its 'How do we curb their unconstitutional/non-EU aligned powers and introduce oversight equivalent to the rest of Europe'

tayto lover

This is great news in the battle against criminals.

sprucemoose

pioneerpro wrote: »

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
- Ben Franklin

i was waiting till someone threw out one of these quotes which are usually either out of context or just made up https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1623677475480 have a read of that

Yurt2

Batrachotox wrote: »

There’s always one.

Give me a copy of the keys to your house please, I’d like to have a rummage around. I know you won’t mind as you’ve nothing to hide.

Indeed. I know someone who had their house raided, an amount of weed for personal use was found, and who found themselves in front of a judge on serious charges as if he was part of a Pablo Escobar-like conspiracy. Luckily, he had access to good legal counsel and the case was quashed by the judge. (He's a guy that has Aspergers and would buy weed from time to time as he found it helped him day-to-day; a real harmless sort).

I also have a barrister pal who confided that he routinely sees Gardai lie through their teeth and sex-up evidence in court in an effort pot people at all costs.

Beware the bored Guard in a provincial town looking for a promotion.

In case anyone is confused, I'm not against these powers, as long as there is proper oversight in how it is used and deployed.

ratracer

pioneerpro wrote: »

So the question isn't 'Are the Gardai systemically corrupt' its 'How do we curb their unconstitutional/non-EU aligned powers and introduce oversight equivalent to the rest of Europe'

Should we align the Gardai with the rest of Europe in terms of being fully armed? How about body cams, which again the ICCL seem against but because the gardai might abuse it, rather than use it for evidence gathering, like the rest of European forces?

I’m not a member of AGS btw, just a member of the public.

pioneerpro

sprucemoose wrote: »

i was waiting till someone threw out one of these quotes which are usually either out of context or just made up https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1623677475480 have a read of that

'One of these quotes' 'Usually made up' - God save us from the NPR 'Intellectuals'

It's a derivation of a quote in Poor Richard's Almanac, for which Franklin was the editor. The 1738 Poor Richard's precursor was:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

All the "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." has to do with is Franklin pointing out that the people on the frontier don't want them to do more than provide arms and ammunition so that they can defend themselves instead of becoming subject to a Hegemony in terms of safety.

It's a perfectly apt and appropriate analogy - particularly in the context of this thread.

pioneerpro

ratracer wrote: »

Should we align the Gardai with the rest of Europe in terms of being fully armed? How about body cams, which again the ICCL seem against but because the gardai might abuse it, rather than use it for evidence gathering, like the rest of European forces?

Fully armed? No. Improving oversight and training to the point where we can stop guns falling out of the boots of Gardai cars? Yes

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0711/977864-gardai-gun/

As per Bodycams, given the incredibly frequency which Gardai perjure themselves in court without any civil recourse for their victims, it only makes sense. I doubt the ICCL would have any issue with widespread use of bodycams by Gardai as long as any case where the DPP is the plaintiff and footage 'disappears' or a bodycam is 'accidentally turned off' is immediately thrown out.

I better organise an emergency prison bag to sit beside my emergency hospital bag.

sprucemoose

pioneerpro wrote: »

God save us from the NPR 'Intellectuals'

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANiqA9WR6VV34njTSudK12nn9u7mM4_XMM8qk44RCPoTysAJgSC4hyTm6xODJBCwR7g_YMDHCVQgmZc_qmgPccDCp-pkkyGx0t0GWwFHPitiKLJSsQ1veHtjA-j9iC5DG5R3lBbBUUshMF3mJ6JRIyy7zu8AgfmBLFIwdO0IU7i2 is that okay for you so if NPR isnt good enough?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said or what about that?

put the quote into google with nothing else and the majority of the first page of results will be how the quote is misinterpreted

Witcher

pioneerpro wrote: »

Fully armed? No. Improving oversight and training to the point where we can stop guns falling out of the boots of Gardai cars? Yes

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0711/977864-gardai-gun/

As per Bodycams, given the incredibly frequency which Gardai perjure themselves in court without any civil recourse for their victims, it only makes sense. I doubt the ICCL would have any issue with widespread use of bodycams by Gardai as long as any case where the DPP is the plaintiff and footage 'disappears' or a bodycam is 'accidentally turned off' is immediately thrown out.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

Jerry Attrick

pioneerpro wrote: »

The saddest thing is the arguments from the hoi polloi on basic questions of governance and society that were indisputably answered centuries ago. Case in point.



If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
- Cardinal Richelieu



Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
- Ben Franklin

Yup, anyone can churn out that kind of rubbish to oppose any proposed laws that they don't like. Shucks, I could have done it myself, if I wanted to.

How about: Give me liberty or give me death! So away you go - I'll send a wreath.

However, unlike you, I'm anti-scumbag and anti-criminal and anti any libertarian half wit who supports only the kind of legislation that makes it easier for the crims to beat the system!

As for me, I believe that the scales of justice are far too loaded in favour of the crims and the smartass, taxpayer-paid, free legal aid lawyers as it is.

Fritzbox

Witcher wrote: »

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

Well that's a pretty lame newspaper article especially when the civil liberties guy is referencing the alleged experience of US police forces with bodycams - surely there are a dozen police forces in Europe whose experience with bodycams can be cited instead?

How many police forces in Europe don't use bodycams for regular police members?

pioneerpro

sprucemoose wrote: »

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANiqA9WR6VV34njTSudK12nn9u7mM4_XMM8qk44RCPoTysAJgSC4hyTm6xODJBCwR7g_YMDHCVQgmZc_qmgPccDCp-pkkyGx0t0GWwFHPitiKLJSsQ1veHtjA-j9iC5DG5R3lBbBUUshMF3mJ6JRIyy7zu8AgfmBLFIwdO0IU7i2 is that okay for you so if NPR isnt good enough?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said or what about that?

put the quote into google with nothing else and the majority of the first page of results will be how the quote is misinterpreted

Again, I was around in 2014 when this FUD was originally going around. I dispute it then and dispute it now in the strongest possible terms.

To start with the obvious - all three of your posts are the same source - something that you already know since you're arguing in bad faith - Brookings Institute’s Benjamin Wittes (who also runs lawfareblog) and the original instance of the oft-cited and prejudiced viewpoint.

And no, Techcrunch using Google Ngram as 'evidence' is nowhere near good enough, my god

More to the point, Franklin has used this quote repeatedly in the exact same context over the years - most notably in reference to the Boston Tea Party. In both cases he was clearly saying the colonies should not be willing to give up their essential liberties simply to temporarily appease the crown.

For anyone with a basic ability to read source materials, here's the original text so you can make up your own mind. I'm not letting you drag me down in the mud over pedantry - address the OP or keep your nascent Dunning-Kruger tendencies to yourself.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107

tl;dr - One media-savvy Political analyst in a Think Thank made a brief name for himself in 2014 via a media-agency and a clever bit of SEO with a fairly hot-take on a 250 year old piece of text.

Yurt2

Witcher wrote: »

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

That's a rather measured statement from the ICCL. The Director isn't dismissing bodycams out of hand, rather taking the stance that the public is being oversold on their benefits and that safeguards may allay concerns - that's a rather reasonable stance to take.

pioneerpro

Witcher wrote: »

https://www.newstalk.com/news/use-of-body-cams-by-gardai-has-been-over-sold-to-the-public-iccl-1185624

Yeah that article sums it up nicely

"But the real issue that we have with body-worn cameras specifically is that the move to introduce them, particularly coming in the United States, was based on the belief they would improve police behaviour, reduce crime and give an accurate record of what happens in policing incidents.

But that belief is contextual on the Gardai actually behaving themselves and not acting in a criminal fashion just because they've effective immunity to prosecution (as per Drew Harris and the policing inquiry).

Like any policing tool, you need to have sufficient oversight and penalties in place to ensure that it's being used appropriately. If not - like guns, or tasers, or pepper spray - then they end up being utilised as a tool of civil oppression or worse.

I think my suggestion above is one that the ICCL would be on-board with. As it stands, introducing bodycams in a legislative scenario whereby only the Gardai would benefit would only serve to make the problem worse - something I definitely agree with that article and the ICCL on.

Witcher

Yurt! wrote: »

That's a rather measured statement from the ICCL. The Director isn't dismissing bodycams out of hand, rather taking the stance that the public is being oversold on their benefits and that safeguards may allay concerns - that's a rather reasonable stance to take.

Here they are calling for a halt to their rollout.

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ICCL-Body-Worn-Cameras-DoJ-submission.pdf

pioneerpro

Fritzbox wrote: »

How many police forces in Europe don't use bodycams for regular police members?

Not just that, but its the de facto standard for just about any private security role above a certain grade - some insurance policies actually mandate it.

ALL french police are supposed to be wearing them by next month

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/All-police-in-France-will-wear-body-cameras-by-July-2021-says-Gerald-Darmanin-minister-interior

Indeed the bouncers and the security industry as a whole massively welcome it as it indemnifies them against false claims and general scumbaggery, and has been in use by years. It's saved Supermacs guy on multiple occasions for security claims. And yet the Gardai want to control the narrative of the camera. Why might that be?

Yurt2

Witcher wrote: »

Here they are calling for a halt to their rollout.

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ICCL-Body-Worn-Cameras-DoJ-submission.pdf

Indeed, that was in 2019, and many of the concerns outlined are very real and genuine ones, including ones for victims.

The 2021 quote outlines them calling for safeguards to allay concerns. These are reasonable stances.

Feel free to come back to me on this, but I'd put it to you that this is a maximalist argument you're making. You'll get people here advocating arming AGS like Robocop with 8k night vision predator drone helmets because that'll sort the crims once and for all with little thought given as to the consequences.

The ICCL are not some soft-c*cks that want inveterate house burglars running the country, they're posing honestly framed questions. Indeed, they were among the organisations that sounded the alarm bells about the data retention legislation that has led to the Dwyer mess. Perhaps if people at the time listened with open ears instead of cheerleading maximalist legislation that was clearly badly written, we could have had a regime that empowered AGS to construct cases between the legal ditches. Alternatively, we could keep lambasting them as some sort of criminal lobby group when they are anything but and people wilfully miss the point of a civil liberties org keeping an eye on the State losing the run of itself when it sometimes has the impulse to go full Judge Dredd without thought for the fallout.

Witcher

Yurt! wrote: »

Indeed, that was in 2019, and many of the concerns outlined are very real and genuine ones, including ones for victims.

The 2021 quote outlines them calling for safeguards to allay concerns. These are reasonable stances.

Feel free to come back to me on this, but I'd put it to you that this is a maximalist argument you're making. You'll get people here advocating arming AGS like Robocop with 8k night vision predator drone helmets because that'll sort the crims once and for all with little thought given as to the consequences.

The ICCL are not some soft-c*cks that want inveterate house burglars running the country, they're posing honestly framed questions. Indeed, they were among the organisations that sounded the alarm bells about the data retention legislation that has led to the Dwyer mess. Perhaps if people at the time listened with open ears instead of cheerleading maximalist legislation that was clearly badly written, we could have had a regime that empowered AGS to construct cases between the legal ditches. Alternatively, we could keep lambasting them as some sort of criminal lobby group when they are anything but and people wilfully miss the point of a civil liberties org keeping an eye on the State losing the run of itself when it sometimes has the impulse to go full Judge Dredd without thought for the fallout.

I think it's you that isn't listening to the ICCL on this, they're dead set against bodycams.

The proposed introduction of the bodycams is "invasive and unnecessary", according to the ICCL. There is no good evidence for the positive impact of their use and therefore no good reason for their introduction in Ireland, the group added.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-will-wear-body-cameras-under-new-laws-40272488.html

Yurt2

Witcher wrote: »

I think it's you that isn't listening to the ICCL on this, they're dead set against bodycams.



https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-will-wear-body-cameras-under-new-laws-40272488.html

The Director is on record on several publications, including the one you posted, calling for a balance to be found and oversights put it in. (Like a complete smartar*e, I have another link him quoted as such loaded and ready to go for when you ask).

That's not dead set against in any reasonable definition.

spring lane jack

tayto lover wrote: »

This is great news in the battle against criminals.

Cannabis. FYP

KevRossi

There's a provisional overview of the legislation here from Vicky Conway. It lays out some of the pros and cons, the good and the bad of the legislation and where it needs to be worked on. Worth a read IMO:


https://twitter.com/drvconway/status/1404375191648620545

pioneerpro

KevRossi wrote: »

There's a provisional overview of the legislation here from Vicky Conway. It lays out some of the pros and cons, the good and the bad of the legislation and where it needs to be worked on. Worth a read IMO:

Been through it. Negatives are chilling and Positives can broadly be described as paying lip service to civil liberties, i.e.



Increased powers without any reciprocal increase in the responsibility needed to wield these powers, and no civil or criminal avenues for remediation if they do.



The Gardai have never needed this. They use Peace Commissioners to obtain search warrants for anything they know a judge will reject them for, or when they're just bored at the weekends/late at night.



I will note that *all* of these powers are secondary in the Irish context to the enshrined belief that the Garda in question 'thought they were doing right' - e.g. the subject of Justice Hardiman's last dissent

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0415/694274-evidence-supreme-court/

However, in a strongly worded dissenting judgment, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman criticised the decision, which he said could give the gardaí effective immunity from judicial oversight.

The judge said he believed this was "utterly unwise" in the wake of two tribunals concerning the gardaí and unresolved disquiet over the oversight and administration of justice.

The exclusionary rule was set down by a key case in 1990 known as the Kenny case and affects the circumstances in which evidence can be excluded from a criminal trial.

Up to now, the rule had the effect of excluding evidence if an accused person's constitutional rights were breached during the gathering of such evidence, whether or not those rights were breached by mistake or unknowingly.

It was invoked in a criminal case at the circuit court, resulting in the collapse of a trial of a man accused of burglary.

The DPP had appealed the case under the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows her to appeal a case where it is claimed that compelling evidence was erroneously excluded. This morning the court allowed the appeal in a four to three majority verdict and set down a new test for the admissibility of such evidence.

Witcher

pioneerpro wrote: »

The Gardai have never needed this. They use Peace Commissioners to obtain search warrants for anything they know a judge will reject them for, or when they're just bored at the weekends/late at night.

The only warrant a PC can issue is a S.26 warrant under the MDA 1977/84.

They can't issue S.48/S.10 warrants.

Yurt2

pioneerpro wrote: »

I will note that *all* of these powers are secondary in the Irish context to the enshrined belief that the Garda in question 'thought they were doing right' - e.g. the subject of Justice Hardiman's last dissent

A legal eagle friend of mine called the striking down of Kenny as the creation of a "Father Dougal clause" for AGS in evidence collection.