Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-17 ============================================================ Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South I thank Senator Andrews for his amendment and his contribution. Senator Andrews's amendment and the subsequent amendments relate to Part 3 of the Bill, which concerns search of premises. Senator Andrews has correctly emphasised the importance of our legal process giving recognition to journalistic privilege. The reason I am bringing forward amendments in respect of Part 3 is specifically because of the Supreme Court judgment to which Senator Andrews referred, namely, Corcoran. Corcoran, as I indicated previously, was a very important decision. It involved a journalist being subjected to a search warrant application by An Garda Síochána. It was heard in the District Court. The search warrant was for the search of the offices of the journalist and his own residence. The District Court was not informed at the time of the search warrant application that the respondent to the application was a journalist. Mr. Corcoran went the whole way to the Supreme Court and was successful in his challenge to the search warrant that was imposed against him. The reason An Garda Síochána had sought the search warrant and access to his digital communications - his computer - was because there had been a very serious assault and attack in a certain part of the country and the Garda believed there was valuable and useful information and evidence on Mr. Corcoran's laptop. Ultimately, however, journalistic privilege prevailed. During the course of the Supreme Court judgment, Mr. Justice Hogan, to whom Senator Andrews referred, indicated that section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 was very defective because it did not provide any mechanism for the court to be informed about the fact that an application for a search warrant may impinge upon or affect journalistic privilege. Mr. Justice Hogan and the rest of the Supreme Court said that section 10, which is the provision that deals with the application for a search warrant, required urgent legislative intervention by the Oireachtas. That is why I am bringing forward what is in Part 3 of this piece of legislation. It is to ensure the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court are responded to, and that the legislation seeking search warrants is more robust, and also recognises and reflects the importance of privilege that may arise. I believe that the provisions contained in the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill do so. Senator Andrews's amendment refers to the necessity for an inter partes hearing, but it is important at the outset to set out what is the procedure set out in Part 3 of the legislation. For instance, looking at section 17, it governs the standard provision in respect of an application for a search warrant. It sets out when a member of An Garda Síochána may apply for a search warrant. Section 17(5) states: Where an applicant [who is a member of An Garda Síochána] suspects that privileged material may be present at the proposed place of search, or contained in, or accessible from, any electronic device or information system that may be present at that place, his or her application shall include such information as is known to him or her relating to - (a) the nature of the privileged material concerned, and (b) any other matter relating to the privileged material ... To begin with, therefore, there is now an express statutory obligation on any garda who is applying to the District Court for a search warrant to inform the court of the fact that he or she believes there may be privileged information pursuant to the search. That could be legal professional privilege, it could be journalistic privilege or it could be some other public interest privilege. That is expressly provided for. Then there are further provisions contained within section 19, which provides for the search of electronic device or information system under search warrant. As the last subsection of section 19 provides that "subject to the condition that a privilege screening or digital forensic examination of the data concerned may be conducted", there is a recognition that there is a process of screening information for any privileged information. However, the real substantive provisions that relate to Senator Andrews's amendment are contained in sections 24 and 25 of the Bill. Section 24 sets out a process for the determination as to privilege. If there is going to be a complaint made by an individual who is the subject of a search warrant that information or a computer was seized that contains material governed by privilege, this is set out in subsections (1) and (2) of section 24. Without reading out all the procedures, there is a mechanism contained within this for a hearing before the High Court where individuals can set out what they view as the reasons as to why the search warrant or the material should not be inspected because it is covered by journalistic privilege. Obviously we could not have a situation where somebody is just able to say you cannot search that because it is legal privilege or that it is journalistic privilege. There has to be some assessment of it. Just because somebody is a lawyer it does not mean that their phone is protected from search by the Garda. Privileged material on the phone is protected but the Garda are entitled to probe that. Similarly, just because a person says he or she is a journalist does not mean that the search comes to the end. I indicated, I think on Committee Stage, that I felt this proposed amendment to section 18 was not necessary and I remain of that view. The Bill already provides for inter partes adjudication before privileged material may be examined, but preserves the ability for initial warrant applications to proceed ex parte where operationally necessary. As I mentioned already, sections 24 and 25 of the Bill create a structured mechanism for the resolution of privileged disputes. Where material is apprehended to be privileged and an authorised member seeks to access it for evidential purposes, an application must be made to the High Court. That application proceeds on notice to the relevant person who is entitled to identify the material claimed to be privileged and make submissions to the court. The court may also issue interim preservation directions and appoint an independent and suitably qualified person to examine the material and report back. Unless and until the court determines that the material is not privileged, it cannot be examined by investigators. Where privilege is upheld the material must be returned or deleted. That distinction reflects the approach endorsed in the Corcoran case, as I just indicated, namely, that the essential safeguard is prior independent review before access to the material itself, rather than requiring every procedural step to occur on notice. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment. Senator Andrews may have been concerned that the term "journalistic privilege" is not contained within the Bill. There are reasons for that. It is hard to get a specific definition "journalistic privilege". It is recognised in Irish law and it is respected in Irish law. The decision of Corcoran emphasises that. As a drafter, I thought it was more appropriate to have a reference to privilege in general. There can be an assessment on whether it is legal professional privilege or journalistic privilege or other types of privilege that may arise. There is a statutory procedure in place that enables that submission or that contention of privilege to be assessed and determined on an inter partes basis. --- 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/2026-06-17/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:04+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-17