Section 52 states:
The court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case under this section unless the court is satisfied—
(a) that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned.. . .
(b) that the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done. . .
Who pays this?
The State.
What is the procedure? Does the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Justice pay? The court decides and presumably the State has to provide for it under the Estimates.
Justice.
Regarding enforcement officers, we already debated peace officers in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993. Are we getting an enforcement officer in by the back door, or is this a peace officer by a new title? What is the purpose of including enforcement officer here? I am not against the idea. If there are already peace officers, why is it necessary to have enforcement officers? What is the purpose of creating this new term, having already created the term "peace officer" in the other Bill?
Regarding (2) (1), power to stop, board, divert and detain a ship, if an enforcement officer is appointed under this legislation, presumbly that means the Naval Service can act without the Garda. Is that the case? Is a member of the Defence Forces, a member of the Naval Service in this case, to be both a peace officer and an enforcement officer?
I am told that enforcement officers include members of the Garda Síochána, customs officers and other specified persons. They would be, for example, officers in Government Departments, such as on the non-customs side of the Revenue Commissioners of fisheries officers in the Department of the Marine. They are the type of other specified persons mentioned in this Schedule.
Why do we need two different terms, "enforcement officer" and "peace officer", in legislation?
There is no specific reason for the difference. It is a tidy way to include all of these people. Rather than name them individually, we refer to them as enforcement officers.
The second part of my question is in relation to the boarding of a ship. If a member of the Naval Service is an enforcement officer, presumably they will not need a Garda presence, or any of the other people designated under (1) (c), such as fisheries officers if they were named. Is that correct?
I am not clear in relation to that. I will have to talk to the parliamentary draftsman about it and get back to the Deputy.
Is the First Schedule agreed?
No, I want to ask another question. Regarding (4) (b), it states "and section 9 (1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1976, shall apply in relation to anything seized under this paragraph". Could the Minister tell me the thinking behind that?
Under this Bill if the Garda in the course of a search find other material that would indicate that it is related to other offences rather than offences under this Bill, then they can take that material with them also. They are not confined.
Subsection (7) states that "an enforcement officer shall, if required, produce evidence of his authority". By whom is it required? Is it by a court, when giving evidence?
No. When they come to investigate an individual, they would have to have proof of identity
If somebody asks for identity, one is required to produce it.
Yes.
Under the supplementary heading it states:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, applies to the proceedings as it applies to other proceedings before a court.
What gives rise to this doubt and why is that section included?
This ensures that the Bankers' Books Evidence Acts. 1879 to 1989, shall apply to the proceedings before the nominated judge. Those Acts include provision that copies of entries in bankers' books shall be admissible in legal proceedings as evidence of the transactions to which the entries relate. The Acts also contain powers to inspect and take copies of entries for the purposes of a legal proceeding.
