Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-26
============================================================

Lynn Ruane (IND), University of Dublin

In this grouping, we have amendments Nos. 32 and 33. Section 17 outlines the procedure for applying for a search warrant by a member of An Garda Síochána. Section 17(5) outlines that, if the member suspects that privileged material will be present at the place of the search, he or she must include this information in the application for the search warrant. Section 18 provides for a privilege screening in instances where a judge considers it necessary and proportionate. However, it is not mandated in every instance.
Amendment No. 32 seeks to ensure that, where a member of An Garda Síochána includes in an application that privileged journalistic material might be present at a place that is to be searched, that member will not have access to the material prior to a privilege screening. Without such a provision, the sequencing by which gardaí have access to privileged material could very seriously undermine the confidentiality of that material. The screening process only begins after search warrants have been issued against journalists. Once gardaí are given access to journalistic materials, there is significant risk of improper disclosure of confidential information. A burden is also placed on members of An Garda Síochána. If members were to read privileged information that was in some way associated with a potential crime of any sort, they would have to act on that privileged information. It creates a burden in the other direction too. More generally, this Bill provides a statutory footing in Irish law for the investigation of journalistic material by gardaí, although that footing is constitutionally murky.
Currently there is no such provision or clear guidance on how journalistic privilege operates and there has been an ongoing tension between the courts and journalists on whether such a privilege is absolute since the Mahon tribunal sued The Irish Times in 2009 to recover confidential documents leaked from the tribunal regarding payments to the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. Despite winning the core legal arguments in the case, The Irish Times was punished for destroying documents ahead of legal proceedings and the court's decision was to have substantial legal costs awarded against them. The court's message was that journalists do not get to decide what constitutes journalistic privilege, we do. This Bill purports to give the court guidance in how the constitutional right to journalistic privilege can be expressed in practice but the process here is convoluted and unnecessarily complicated.
Amendment No. 33, as the Bill is currently drafted, is probably unworkable. However, as recommended by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, the intention here is that search warrants would not be granted for journalists' homes or places of work without a determination of privilege preceding it. The convoluted way in which the Bill is currently structured does not allow for this and, obviously, a determination of privilege cannot be made from material that is not seized in the course of a search. The fundamental point is that true consideration of journalistic privilege and their associated constitutional rights must be given before the granting of any search warrant. This is simply not the case in the Bill as it is currently drafted.

---

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/2026-05-26/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:59+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-05-26