It will be recalled that the Supreme Court in the Barrington judgment of January 1999 in regard to National Irish Bank held that a confession obtained by the inspectors, as a result of the exercise by them of their powers under section 10, as modified by the 1993 case, Desmond & Ors v. Glackin & Ors, and section 18 of the Companies Act, 1990, would not in general be admissible at a subsequent criminal trial unless in any particular case the trial judge was satisfied that the confession was voluntary. On that basis, I am advised that the principles of constitutionality obtained in the National Irish Bank case should apply in a similar way to section 19(6). That subsection provides that a statement made by a person to an authorised officer in compliance with a section 19 requirement may be used in evidence against him.
The Company Law Enforcement Bill, 2000, provides for the repeal and replacement of section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990. In providing for the repeal and replacement of section 19, the Bill left subsection (6) of that section unchanged. On the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the National Irish Bank case, it would appear this provision is not, in itself, unconstitutional.
Arising from the Second Stage debate on the Bill a commitment was given that section 19(6) would be looked at in more detail. I propose, therefore, to introduce a Government amendment to the Bill, on Committee Stage. The amendment will be to the effect that statements made by persons in compliance with section 19 may only be used against them in criminal proceedings in respect of the falsity of those statements.
