Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1970

Vol. 247 No. 4

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Interception of Private Mail.

48.

asked the Minister for Justice the number of warrants issued by his Department, under section 56 (2) of the Post Office Act, 1908, for the interception and inspection of mail addressed to private individuals; the procedures which must be gone through prior to the issue of such warrants; the circumstances in which they are issued; and the courses open to people who seek the withdrawal of such warrants.

As has been pointed out by my predecessors on several occasions, it has never been the practice and it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose information as to the number of postal warrants in force at any particular time.

Warrants are issued only for security purposes or for the prevention and detection of serious crime, information as to which could be got in no other way.

The important point in the procedure, in relation to an application from the Garda Síochána, is that there must be a certificate from the commissioner, or his deputy, that the two conditions I have mentioned are fulfilled, namely, that the warrant is required for security purposes or for the prevention and detection of serious crime and, secondly, that the information cannot be obtained in any other way. If an application were to be made on behalf of Military Intelligence, the certificate as to the need for the warrant would have to be signed by the director of Military Intelligence and would have to be backed by the Minister for Defence personally and would then follow the usual procedure.

It is also the established practice that no warrant is permitted to remain in force for more than a short period unless the need for its continuation is expressly certified afresh in the same way as the original application. I have recently re-emphasised that any such re-certification should be subject to the same degree of care as the original application.

Since the issue of a warrant in a particular case is, necessarily, a matter that cannot be disclosed, the question of a member of the public seeking the withdrawal of a warrant cannot arise.

Does the Minister not agree that the supervision of private mail is a serious incursion into the liberty of the individual? Does the Minister not agree that there should be some judicial supervision of the exercise of this power by the Minister? Does the Minister not also agree that an individual who considers his mail has been unjustly intercepted and inspected should have some recourse open to him to prevent the continuance of this supervision? Would the Minister not agree that there should be some judicial authority to whom such an individual could appeal to ensure that this power was not used in an unjust manner?

Any judicial supervision would necessarily entail telling the person concerned that a warrant was in force which would rather defeat the purpose of the warrant. Statutory authority for this procedure is used in every country in the world.

Did you tap the phones of Blaney and Boland?

Surely the Minister must agree that a statement of the total number of warrants issued over a period would not in any way prejudice the action of the Minister or of the State in regard to security? It would give some indication to the House of the incidence of such practices and would get rid of much public disquiet and concern in relation to normal civil liberties. We are entitled to know how widespread is this practice.

I am satisfied that it is not in the interests of national security to divulge the total number.

There must indeed be many cases.

Barr
Roinn