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. Under section 19(1)(f) of the Bill there is an ability within a search warrant for it to be expressed in such a way as to require any person who appears to the authorised member to have access to, or to have under his or her power or control, the information held in any electronic device or that can be accessed by it to provide them with the passwords.
The amendment put forward by Senator Andrews and his colleagues is in respect of that. It says that where journalists or a publisher asserts journalistic privilege in respect of materials stored on an electronic device no requirement to provide access credentials, which is what is provided for in section 19(1)(f), shall apply until a court has determined whether the privilege applies. The Bill therefore places the issue of compelled access under judicial supervision from the outset because an order under section 19(1)(f) will only be made where the judge is satisfied that such powers are necessary and proportionate having regard to the sworn information provided by the applicant. The Bill therefore places the issue of compelled access under judicial supervision. This approach adopted reflects the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission which recognised that persons executing search warrants may require powers to obtain assistance from persons present, including assistance in accessing digital material. Similar provisions already exist in Irish law under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act. The Bill, therefore, is not creating a novel or unrestricted power but rather modernises and structures existing investigative powers in light of the realities of encrypted digital evidence.
Importantly, the Bill also responds directly to concerns expressed in another important Supreme Court decision, DPP v. Quirke, and, indeed, in Corcoran v. The Commissioner, with regard to the seizure and access of a device. It expressly allows a judge to limit the scope of any warrant concerning electronic devices and to attach conditions where necessary. The reason for that is that in the Quirke decision Mr. Justice Charleton said that an electronic device is really a separate space that requires a specific and separate authorisation.
On the amendment, an additional provision stating that a journalist or publisher has no obligation to provide access credentials once privilege has been asserted would be counterproductive. The statutory framework already assumes that access to a device may be required in order to identify, preserve and securely process potentially privileged materials before a court can determine whether privilege applies. In the context of encrypted devices it may be impossible to conduct privileged screening unless the device can be accessed or preserved. A blanket exception would therefore risk frustrating the operation of the carefully balanced safeguards contained in the Bill. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment. Privilege will be preserved and protected and there is the mechanism whereby it can be assessed but what cannot happen is somebody says “privilege” and therefore you cannot look at it or seek to access it. It is at a further stage for the content of the privilege to be assessed and determined by the 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/2026-06-17/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:04+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-17