Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026: Second Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-02-04
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I thank Senators for their contributions to this debate on what is very important proposed legislation. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Gallagher as an méid a dúirt sé. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach leis. I will deal generally with some of the issues identified by my friends Senators Boyhan and Ryan on the right-hand side of the House, because there is support for the legislation on the Government side. Senator Boyhan referred to the Bill's digest documentation and I will certainly have a look at it. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service is invaluable and useful, and it is important for Ministers such as myself to get an alternative perspective on legislation.
Senators Boyhan and Ryan emphasised the need to place human rights at the centre of the legislation. I have to say that, when we look at the policing and community safety legislation I commenced last year, at the heart of it is the requirement that human rights be front and centre of what the Garda seeks to do on behalf of the community. An integral part of everything the Garda does is ensuring that the human rights of all persons on the island are protected. I do not think it is necessary to set it out in every piece of legislation. If I set it out in this legislation, then any other time Garda powers are referred to, or when any legislation in respect of the Garda is referred to, we will have to start referencing human rights. The Senators can take it that it is central to all of the work that An Garda Síochána does.
Senator Boyhan also mentioned intimate searches. There are guidelines and rules in An Garda Síochána as to how intimate searches should be carried out. This legislation is not about that. It is about trying to stop and search individuals who may be carrying relevant articles as defined in the legislation, or individuals suspected of committing an indictable offence or a scheduled offence. I assure the Senator that there are very strong rules in respect of how any intimate searches, should they arise, should be conducted by An Garda Síochána.
Senator Boyhan also mentioned electronic devices. The Supreme Court decision made in Quirke emphasised something that we all generally recognise now. Prior to that Supreme Court decision, it was assumed that if the Garda got a warrant to search a house and if there was a mobile phone in that house, the warrant would authorise the Garda to search the phone as well as the house. Mr. Justice Charleton in the Supreme Court said that we needed to recognise that a digital device was a separate digital space that required its own authorisation if the Garda wished to search it. This is sensible and it is a greater protection for the Irish public. It recognises the fact there is a lot of information on individuals' phones and there should be a separate application if the Garda wants to search a phone or another digital device.
Senator Boyhan also mentioned that he believed it would be preferable if there was an inter partes application for the purpose of assessing journalistic privilege or any other privilege. This is provided for in section 24(2), which states that a relevant person concerned may bring an application in respect of wishing to assert that there is a privilege arising in respect of the search warrant that has been granted. The Corcoran case was instructive.
An Garda Síochána went to the District Court seeking a search warrant under section 10 of the 1997 Act. The District Court was not informed that the search warrant was in respect of Mr. Corcoran, who was a recognised journalist, nor was the district judge informed that the search warrant was also in respect of premises that were the offices of a newspaper, I think it was in Tipperary. When this matter was challenged by Mr. Corcoran after the search warrant was granted, it went the whole way to the Supreme Court, which recognised that section 10 needed to be urgently reformed because there was nothing in it to take into account journalistic privilege or any other privilege that may arise. It happened in that case that there was journalistic privilege and there was no mechanism for seeking to invoke it. It happened in other cases as well in respect of legal professional privilege. Therefore, I fully appreciate the instruction and warning from the Supreme Court that, unless we change section 10 of the 1997 Act, the likelihood is that the Supreme Court will rule in any challenge that it is not compliant with the Constitution. We have been given a warning and that is why I am heeding the words of Mr. Justice Hogan of the Supreme Court that there is an urgency to this matter. That is why I am reforming the law in this area.
Senator Nicole Ryan also mentioned a number of matters that overlap. I might deal with some of them now. She said that there is a lot of delay in justice reform. I want her to know that I am committed to doing as much as possible, as quickly as I can, as Minister for justice. However, it is correct that sometimes proposals are made or reform issues are discussed and are not pushed on. If we want to change things and achieve policy objectives, we have to push on legislation in the Houses and that is why I am here today.
It is also important to point out that one of the advantages of this legislation, particularly when the amendments are proposed on Committee Stage, will be that it will codify search powers. Members of the public should be able to find out what powers An Garda Síochána has to stop and search. They will be able to go to this legislation and I want to ensure this encompasses all the legislation that deals with Garda powers of stop and search. It is a significant power An Garda Síochána has. None of the rest of us can stop people on the street and search them. However, it is extremely important that we set out on a statutory basis the occasions on which An Garda Síochána can stop and search individuals. That is something gardaí want as well. It does not suit the interests of individual gardaí if the laws are vague or if we are relying on some unwritten common law. It is extremely important from the point of view of gardaí that they can look to written legislation that clearly specifies what they can and cannot do. That legislation will only come into place if the elected representatives of the Irish people in this House and the Lower House agree to it.
Senator Ryan also mentioned the recording of interviews. This will be a real benefit. Historically, gardaí have had to waste far too much time transcribing notes of complainants who come before them. It can take a long time. They will now be able record interviews. I also want to be able to progress the prospect of having transcription mechanisms in place, so gardaí do not have to write down every word of the recording, but will have it written down by some of the new software devices that are available.
Senator Ryan also referred to what she called a retention and recruitment crisis. I have to disagree with her. That term was used a number of years ago. The representative associations do not even refer to a crisis now. I am pleased to say that in terms of retention, the number of people who left An Garda Síochána in 2024 was approximately 141 or 142. That is 1% of a force that has 14,500 members now. A 1% departure from a police force is unprecedentedly low, compared, in Ireland, with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, and with the UK police force. That is a sign we are doing a good job of retaining gardaí in the force.
I am pleased to say recruitment numbers are looking good. I will be in Templemore on Friday for another passing out ceremony of, I think, 168 or 170 gardaí. They are good numbers. If we can consistently keep getting figures of approximately 200 coming in and out and if we get close to 1,000, we will begin to see, as we are seeing, greater Garda visibility in our communities.
In my last minute, I will deal with the issue of journalistic privilege. It is worth pointing out that this is the first Bill that is expressly designed to deal with the protection of privilege. Senators are correct that it does not mention journalistic privilege or any other particular type of privilege. A number of different types of privilege exist and I did not think it appropriate to specify and define them. However, journalistic privilege is clearly covered by the provisions contained in this legislation. That is one of the reasons the provisions I outlined earlier are being introduced. I recognise, and more important the Supreme Court recognises, that journalistic privilege is a right that exists in Irish law. It is not specified in any written Act, but it is a consequence, as Mr. Justice Hogan said, of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. This legislation is a real advancement of protection of journalistic privilege and journalistic sources and it will ensure a statutory mechanism is in place, if a journalist says that what is being seized or what An Garda Síochána is seeking to search contains journalistic confidential information, for that to be determined by a court.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-02-04/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:35+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-02-04