Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-23 ============================================================ Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South It contains photographs and other biometric information. The Senator asked whether the database will be registered under the provision contained in the AI Act. Obviously, once this legislation is enacted, it is not the case that the Garda will be able to engage in biometric identification against a database so there will not be any necessity or requirement to introduce the registration of such a database. Senator Higgins also raised the issue of the code of conduct and whose code of conduct it is. It is the code of conduct that is prepared by the Garda Commissioner in consultation with, in the instance of what we are discussing here, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. It also must be prepared in consultation with me and with the Policing Authority and the Office of the Police Ombudsman, Fiosrú. This clearly is a code of conduct into which there will be inputs from many significant stakeholders, including me. It will come to me and ultimately be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Although it is a code of conduct prepared by the Garda Commissioner, if it subsequently comes into effect, it is a code that has had the sanction and that has been consulted on with many important stakeholders in the sphere. I will turn to amendment No. 9 being put forward by Senator Higgins. Senator Higgins wants to change subsection (8) of section 43C so that it reads the results of biometric analysis shall not be used by An Garda Síochána, except with there being an order of the Circuit Court, "unless the use of such results has been approved by a decision of the Circuit Court". What I propose and what is there at present is that the results shall not be used "unless such results have been reviewed by a member of Garda personnel and have been ascertained by him or her to be of sufficient reliability to be so used". It is extremely important that we emphasise that the use of biometric analysis is an investigative tool to assist the Garda in very serious criminal investigations, as I have outlined previously, in respect of child sexual abuse. It is a tool. No one is suggesting that somebody is going to be convicted exclusively on foot of the use of this tool. However, it is an important tool. If we were to put in place the amendment suggested by Senator Higgins, it would lead to extraordinary consequences where a member of An Garda Síochána conducting an investigation using biometric analysis would not be able to act on foot of the results of biometric analysis unless he or she got an order from a Circuit Court judge to say they are permitted to use this investigative tool for the purpose of the serious investigation. It would have a chilling impact on investigative work done by An Garda Síochána. For example, with child sexual abuse material investigations, which I have raised repeatedly, a garda could be looking at hundreds if not thousands of victims or suspects within a single device and if an authorisation process is imposed it would mean not only would gardaí be spending time making applications to the Circuit Court but court services would be inundated with authorisation requests. This would not free up resources or speed up investigations. Rather, it would have the opposite effect and pose significant operational difficulties, particularly in the context of these types of investigations. What we can all agree on in child sexual abuse material investigations is that gardaí must be able to sort through the volumes of material they find as quickly and efficiently as possible to remove victims from harm and bring perpetrators to justice. If we look at the types of searches gardaí may perform, a facial image will not always be used. It could be searches for a particular hair colour, height or distinctive facial feature. Is it an effective or efficient use of Garda time or resources for gardaí to have to make an application every time they wish to search for the height or age range in this type of data in order that they can filter out relevant images? If we were to proceed on the basis of this amendment we would increase the risk that suspects may flee the jurisdiction, as can be the case in current manual systems. In a serious crime investigation sometimes speed is of the essence to ensure that those who perpetrate serious offences are not permitted to remove themselves from the reach of the investigation. Any search will only provide investigative leads. As I say, it is an investigative tool. It is grouping relevant images together or finding relevant frames in CCTV footage gathered in an investigation into serious crime so that a person can review the relevant footage or have a starting point for their review. The purpose of the current subsection (8) is to ensure that there is not an over-reliance on the technology and that trained gardaí are interrogating results. It is much more appropriate that that be the method by which human involvement is here, that members of the Garda themselves review this investigative tool as they review all the investigative tools that they use at present. It would be completely inappropriate to put in a requirement that when members of the Garda are engaged in an investigation, before they act on foot of some lead obtained in an investigation they have to get approval from the Circuit Court for the purpose of continuing with that lead. It also begs the question of who is going to be the respondent in such an application? Under Senator Higgins's application, the Garda Commissioner has to go to the Circuit Court. Who is on the other side? Who will be the person who is the legitimate contradictor saying this should not happen? Obviously, we cannot put on notice of the suspect or indeed the victim. We will have this bizarre system whereby the Circuit Court is not going to be determining an adversarial dispute. Instead, under this proposed amendment, it will be asked to second-guess and to review the work of An Garda Síochána to see whether it should be permitted to continue with the fruits of its investigation. That would not just undermine An Garda Síochána terribly but would also have a significant negative impact on the work of the Judiciary. --- 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/2026-06-23/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:05+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-23