This is another safeguard we are proposing. The Ó Briain report also referred to such matters on page 18, paragraph 58:
Questioning within the confines of a Garda Station can be a traumatic experience for all but the hardened criminal. It seems appropriate that steps should be taken to draw up regulations governing questioning procedures in those cases where questioning is permissible, as, for example, the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. Such regulations should allow the Gardaí to ask questions in a fair and humane manner, and at the same time protect the person being questioned from feeling isolated, vulnerable or intimidated. We believe that not more than two Gardaí should be entitled to question a prisoner at one time, and that not more than four Gardaí should be present at any one time. Prolonged questioning should not be permitted; at most, four hours of questioning should be allowed, followed by a break of one hour...
The words to which I want to draw attention are "such regulations should allow the Gardaí to ask questions in a fair and humane manner, and at the same time protect the person being questioned from feeling isolated, vulnerable or intimidated". For example, the removal of eye glasses can be a form of intimidation and the removal of a watch can make it difficult to keep track of the time. There have been instances where the removal of a watch has been cited as a form of intimidation and disorientation. One might think there is no need to cover points like this because behaviour would always be humane and reasonable and there would never be any intention to put a person being questioned at a disadvantage, but we know from experience that this sort of thing happens. It is important that there be safeguards, whether in the Bill or in the regulations, to cover such incidents. We are inclined to think of a person being bruised or beaten or having some injury to his shoulder or face which would leave some mark. Those are very clear-cut situations but here we are speaking about psychological pressure placed on an individual, perhaps in a smaller proportion of cases. It is quite clear that psychological pressure is used in certain instances during questioning. In one case on which an affidavit was sworn, the person told of a practice of shoving the questioner's fingers up against his eyes to such an extent that he was sure they would hit his eyes but they did not. He said that he could not understand how they could keep coming so close to his face, like a bunch of grapes, and not actually hit it. This became quite intimidating.
The ordinary person, especially the innocent person who becomes unwittingly involved will feel very isolated and vulnerable in these surroundings. There are also other methods of putting psychological pressure on people. There should be certain minimum safeguards. We propose that the personal belongings should not be removed except where necessary, particularly in relation to a person's own safety and that what is done in that respect should be recorded. That is the intention behind section 5. It could alternatively be dealt with under regulations, if appropriate. I put it down at this stage to indicate our concern.