Recordings ‘needed to prosecute’

GARDAI would be able to prosecute more crime bosses if they were allowed to use evidence from electronic surveillance in court, senior officers said yesterday.

“If we really want to get the main people, we need to go a step further and allow electronic surveillance be accepted in court,” said one senior officer.

“It’s very difficult to link the top men with drug seizures apart from surveillance information. That’s why there are very few conspiracy charges and the people we tend to get are the couriers.”

He said electronic surveillance could record a top criminal talking to a person about goods and often revealed specific details about the times and transportation of a drug deal.

However when a vehicle is later searched and gardai find cocaine, often only the courier is arrested.

“We should be able to play the tape of the conversation in court, showing the link between the criminal and the courier,” said the officer.

The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) is calling on Justice Minister Michael McDowell to consider changing the legislation to allow courts to accept electronic surveillance as evidence.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) is not opposed to the proposal in principle, as long as safeguards are put in place.

“Generally, I would encourage good forensic practice and gardai using more forensic evidence,” said ICCL director Aisling Reidy.

She said safeguards should include:

lA provision that the accused can explain in court what he is alleged to have said in recording;

The surveillance is not used as a form of entrapment;

Other people are not incriminated in what is said in the recordings.

AGSI wants an end to the current system whereby only specific phone lines can be tapped to allow the electronic surveillance of a “named person”, including all landlines, mobile phones, email addresses and fax lines associated with that person.

“If we can tap all their phones that would make things much more awkward for them,” said one garda.

He said by focusing on the phones of a named person, this would also deal with the problem of dealers changing their phones, which they do regularly.

“Instead of having to seek new authorisation each time they do so, it would be better if we just automatically swap over, as they do in Holland.”

As part of its proposal AGSI also wants the Government to prevent people buying prepaid mobile phones without registering their name and address.

Ms Reidy said while she accepted the case for phone tapping under an independently monitored system, the ICCL had concerns at proposals to tap all lines associated with a suspect, as this could affect other people having access to the same lines.

How it works

THE system governing phone-tapping is outlined in the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act of 1993.

The legislation gives the Minister for Justice the power to authorise phone taps following a request from the Garda Commissioner or a senior army officer.

Under the act, authorisation can only be given for the purpose of “criminal investigation or in the interests of the security of the State”.

Phone taps run for a maximum of three months, but can be extended for a further three months.

A High Court judge can order the cancelling of an interception if it is not in accordance with the act.