Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Legislation and Security díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996

SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 24, line 29, to delete "including" and substitute "excluding".

Section 6 gives powers of entry and search of a premises to effect an arrest. The section states:

For the purpose of arresting a person for an arrestable offence or on foot of an order of committal a member of the Garda Síochána may enter (if need be, by use of reasonable force) and search any place (including a dwelling) where that person is or where the member, with reasonable cause, suspects that person to be.

This amendment is proposed because there should not be a power of arrest, with or without the use of reasonable force, in a person's dwelling house. The proposal is founded in the belief that a person's dwelling house is inviolable and a member of the Garda should not be allowed to enter a dwelling house by the use of force with a view to effecting an arrest.

Let us consider the example of a man who is married with six young children. If he is suspected of committing an arrestable offence and the Gardaí use reasonable force to gain entry to the family home to arrest the man, one can only imagine the trauma and suffering that would be caused to the wife and children. Powers of arrest may be exercised in many places without reasonable force having to be used at an individual's family home. While recognising that other powers exist, I ask the Minister to reconsider this provision in the context of this Bill.

I have constitutional qualms about the extent of this section which bestows wide powers. The only test in relation to entering the premises without a warrant is that the garda must have reasonable cause to suspect that the person he wants to arrest is on the premises. I considered tabling an amendment to increase that test to belief from suspicion.

Article 40.5 of the Constitution states: "The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law." The provision "save in accordance with law" does not refer simply to that law conferred by an Act of the Oireachtas because the provision has been interpreted by the courts as meaning without stooping to methods which ignore the fundamental norms of the legal order postulated by the Constitution. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the constitutionality of the provision has been considered by the Government. It is in nobody's interest that the legislation should fall foul of the Constitution.

It seems that section 6 would allow a dwelling to be entered forcibly without the involvement of an independent person unconnected with the criminal investigation. Such a matter was referred to the High Court in the Ryan and O'Callaghan case. Under this section the entering garda does not have to satisfy anybody about anything. There do not have to be circumstances of urgency and the garda may forcibly and of his own volition enter a dwelling which has constitutional protection.

The Deputies have identified this as a difficult matter because it deals with an area of common law. Section 6 states:

For the purpose of arresting a person for an arrestable offence or on foot of an order of committal a member of the Garda Síochána may enter (if need be, by use of reasonable force) and search any place (including a dwelling) where that person is or where the member, with reasonable cause, suspects that person to be.

The section specifically provides that a dwelling place is included. Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment seeks to exclude a dwelling.

Existing common law as to entry on dwellings to effect an arrest is complicated and uncertain. The comments of the Deputies indicate their awareness of that sense of uncertainty. It depends on the offence in question being a felony and this Bill abolishes felonies and replaces them with arrestable offences. It seems that under the common law a Garda can effect a non-consensual entry into a dwelling to arrest a felon and can use reasonable force to enter. This is an opportunity to bring some clear statutory powers in that regard into the law. It is an area of uncertainty and we must take this opportunity to clarify the matter.

There is a statutory precedent for what is proposed in section 6. Section 19(5) of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, and section 12(6) of the Criminal Damage Act, 1991, provide for similar powers. Those powers exist in statutes, since 1976 in one case and 1991 in another.

The Government has at all times been conscious of and has had full regard to the provisions of Article 40.5.5 of the Constitution which states that the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law. The Constitution, therefore, permits the Oireachtas to provide by law for powers of entry into dwellings if it decides it is appropriate. The courts have made it abundantly clear in bringing forward a law in this area that we cannot ignore the fundamental rights set out in the Constitution but it would not be possible to provide the Garda with powers of entry and search for the purposes of arrest which are exactly the same powers as are currently exercisable in relation to felony. The purpose of the Bill is to modernise the criminal law by abolishing the distinctions between felonies and misdemeanours. While we cannot exactly mirror what is in common law, we must find a mechanism, which has already been found in the 1976 and 1991 Acts.

Retention of the common law as it stands would make for great uncertainty about exact Garda powers and I would not like to leave that uncertainty there lest a serious crime was under investigation and gardaí felt they needed to enter into a person's dwelling because they thought the guilty person was there to find, owing to a technicality because we have not clarified the law with any certainty, that the case could fall through. We should not legislate positively for the uncertainty which exists in common law. We must be able to legislate with certainty in this crucial area.

The powers are the same as under section 19 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act in relation to offences committed in Northern Ireland. I can find no good reason that the Garda should have lesser powers in relation to offences under the ordinary criminal law of the State which involve no Northern Ireland element. We must grasp this nettle.

Section 6 is a proportionate and balanced way of taking the uncertainty out of the common law. Arrestable offences undoubtedly cover a wide range of offences but we are talking here about offences which attract a five year sentence or more. We are not talking about giving powers to the Garda to enter somebody's home on some petty minor offence. This is a proportionate balance.

The same kinds of arguments hold as with regard to the bail referendum, where we have used the word "serious" and created that category of offences. It is not quite the same but this issue of seriousness is mirrored here — the Oireachtas has designated such offences as ones which will be punishable by five years or more. It is a matter for us, as Oireachtas Members, to try to reconcile the exercise of individual rights within the claims of the common good having full regard to the Constitution. I assure Deputies that this has been cleared by the Attorney General's office in the usual way. It is intended to be proportionate and strike the right balance between the liberty of the individual and the protection of society from crime. Under the circumstances, it is something to which Deputy O'Donoghue, Deputy O'Donnell and I have given a great deal of thought. The committee should recognise that this is a necessary and appropriate measure.

I appreciate everything the Minister said but it brings me back to the question of the type of offence for which this power of arrest can be used. To use the argument of our friends, with whom I do not agree, who oppose the bail referendum, a person can be arrested for stealing a Mars bar because larceny carries a possible sentence of five years or more. There are other relatively minor offences which are also caught by this particular legislation. That is not the Minister's fault. It is as a result of the fact that, because we have not codified our criminal law, there are penalties on the statute book for offences which would have been serious in the 19th century, or even the beginning of this century, but which are not serious today in comparative terms.

Here is a power of arrest which can, in theory, be used by a member of the Garda Síochána in respect of relatively minor offences. A garda will be in the position to break down the door of a person's house on the basis that he suspects or has reasonable cause to suspect that the man stole a Mars bar. This could be used by a garda who has a grudge against a neighbour. It could be used by a small minority of gardaí who may wish to wreak some kind of revenge on an individual in society whom they do not like for some reason. Because that possibility exists, but more because of the more fundamental view that a man's home is his castle, I am not convinced that the common law as it is known or not known should be incorporated into statute law to make the kind of law about which the Minister has been speaking.

Let us be quite clear that where statute law and common law collide statute law takes precedence and there is no argument to advance this particular proposal which can be based on the fact that it already constitutes common law. There are many things which constitute the common law of this country, the neighbouring jurisdiction, and jurisdictions further afield where the British Empire had an influence, which are in no way desirable. Where the common law is in no way desirable it is surely the function of the Oireachtas to amend or change the common law. The question is not about the kind of offence for which a person can arrest or not arrest. The fundamental question which we must ask in relation to section 6 is whether the Garda should have the power to break down a man's front door, arrest him and take him away from his family home in front of his wife and children.

I am of the view that there are plenty of places where the Garda Síochána can arrest people. A person can be arrested in the street and in their place of work for arrestable offences. I understand the Minister's concerns and she does have an argument which one would be foolish to ignore but, on balance, I am inclined to think that when the Constitution speaks about a person's dwelling being "inviolable", and when it goes on to state "save in accordance with law", it does not mean that an individual should be arrested for an arrestable offence inside his dwelling house in front of his wife and family. I say that because there are other provisions in the Constitution which deal with the privacy of the family and the rights a person has to bodily integrity, liberty and the pursuit of his or her objectives and freedom. Taking that into account and being mindful of the Minister's comments, I oppose her on this matter. The power being conferred in section 6 in relation to an individual's family home goes beyond the bounds of what is required to ensure we will be able to deal with crime in our society.

If that holds, does it mean that people could use the family home as a means of escape? Must we strike a balance in that regard?

Someone could, theoretically, become a recluse in their own home and remain inviolable from arrest by the Garda. Members of the force would be obliged to wait outside someone's house until the individual chose to leave. It is a difficult call and were I sitting opposite I would make the same points. I share the concern that a private family home should remain just that. However, I am not naive enough to believe that family homes are always safe places. I have no desire to repeat some of the awful stories I heard in recent days about the terrible things that occur in some family homes. We must face the reality that things change and we must decide whether people in family homes might be in danger from those seeking shelter there from arrest by the Garda. These people may not be watching television with their families; they may be doing something awful and unspeakable in the family home. Irish society has reached a stage where, perhaps, we might have to move forward on this difficult issue.

Section 12(6) of the Criminal Damage Act, 1991, which was introduced by the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats coalition Government, makes provision that, for the purpose of arresting a person under any power conferred by that section, a member of the Garda Síochána may enter, if need be by force, and search any place where that person is or where the member with reasonable cause suspects him to be. That provision included dwelling houses and stated that the Garda could enter such places "if need be by force". The Bill before us provides for the use of reasonable force. The Criminal Damage Act — in the case of minor offences such as damage to trees in public parks, a person's front door or the wing mirror on their car — gives the Garda power to enter someone's home. In this instance, we are tightening that provision considerably by stating that the offence of which a person is suspected must attract a sentence of five years or more and stipulating that only reasonable force may be used.

In the interest of balance, in view of the telling question posed by Deputy Browne and for the sake of people who might be victims of someone who takes shelter in their own family home, we should proceed with section 6 as it stands.

I have one further point to make which relates to domestic violence. As far as I am concerned, that is a separate issue with regard to the arrest of a person in their home. It would be better if I were to give the matter further consideration before Report Stage. I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed at 4.50 p.m.
Section 7 agreed to.
Barr
Roinn