Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 1998

Vol. 488 No. 7

Written Answers. - Postal and Telecommunications Legislation.

Liz McManus

Question:

378 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of occasions and the date on which the President of the High Court has invited a Judge of the High Court to undertake the review of the operation of the Act specified in section 8, since the Act was passed in regard to the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act, 1993; the High Court Judge so nominated in each case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7408/98]

Liz McManus

Question:

379 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of reports he has received from a designated judge appointed under section 8 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act, 1993 since the Act was passed; the number laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas; the date in each case; and the number withheld under the terms of section 8, subsection (8). [7409/98]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 378 and 379 together.

On 8 September 1993, the Government designated Mr. Justice Declan Costello, Judge of the High Court for the purposes of section 8 of the Intereption of Postal Packets and Telecommunications (Messages) Act, 1993. He continued in that role up to the date of his retirement as President of the High Court on 1 January 1998. The procedures for the appointment of a successor to Mr. Justice Costello are almost completed, and I expect that the Government will be asked to approve a nomination very shortly.

During the period of his appoinment Mr. Justice Costello presented four reports to the Taoiseach in accordance with the provisions of section 8(2) of the Act. These reports were dated 16 July 1994, 25 July 1995, 19 July 1996 and 14 July 1997 and were duly laid before each House of the Oireachtas on 5 August 1994, 25 August 1995, 31 July 1996 and 6 October 1997. Each report was accompanied by a statement under section 8(7) of the Act certifying that no matter had been excluded from it under section 8(8) of the Act. In the case of the four reports, the designated judge expressed himself satisfied that the provisions of the Act had been complied with.

Top
Share