Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 May 1989

Vol. 122 No. 19

Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome this Bill. I think the old system of fingerprinting has gone out of date. We are living in modern times with modern technology and this is very important. We know also that criminals are very sophisticated in their way of committing crime so we must be very sophisticated in the manner of detecting crime. The Bill will bring in genetic fingerprinting. It will be a much simpler system and much more positive than the old system.

There are many safeguards for the suspect. No longer can a suspect be brought in and have his hand pushed down on a pad as in the old method of fingerprinting. He had to have his fingerprints taken regardless of whether he wanted to or not. In this particular case, he cannot be brought in or harassed by the Garda because they must have the authority of a superintendent. In practice, the superintendent has to put it in writing and there is no way the suspect can be harassed or badgered by the garda forcing him into this test.

Equally, it is important when people are innocent that there is a scentific way to ensure that they can be either brought before the courts or released. Everybody should welcome that because often when crime is not detected, everybody in the locality is a suspect until the criminal is brought to justice.

There is not a quorum present. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges are unable to meet this afternoon as well to discuss the important matter of the complaint I have placed before them because of the non-attendance of Members. This is a very worrying development with regard to the respect with which this House is treated.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

I note that no sample may be taken by force. I note also that semen is particularly rich in DNA and I wondered how the sample of semen would be taken. Would it be taken with a urethra swab or would the person be expected to ejaculate and if this was against his moral principles, would this go against him in court if there was other corroborative evidence? This was the question I had for the Minister. I hope he will answer it in the course of the reply.

Senator Farrell, you had concluded your contribution?

Practically.

When I came into the Chair I was told you had concluded.

Not really.

Why did you not indicate that?

I am more humble than my learned friends. While I know my right, I do not flog my knowledge. I like to be humble.

We have moved on.

That is all right. I do not mind.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share