I move amendment No. 8: In page 21, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(4) (a) Where an authorised officer or an adjudication officer compels the disclosure of a record or takes possession of a record in accordance with subsection (3)— (i) the officer concerned shall not, pending the final determination of an application under subsection (4) or (6), as the case may be, use, copy, communicate or otherwise act upon the record or its contents for any purpose other than its secure retention in accordance with any directions given by the High Court under subsection (7), (ii) the record shall be retained in a sealed and secure form, and shall not be accessed by any person, save for the purpose of complying with a direction of the High Court under subsection (7), and (iii) any person having custody of the record shall be bound by the restriction in subsection (3) and shall, if required by the High Court, give an undertaking to that effect. (b) Where no application is made under subsection (4) or (6) within the period of 30 days referred to in subsection (4), or within such extended period as the High Court may allow, the record shall be returned forthwith to the person from whom it was taken or compelled, and the officer concerned shall certify in writing that the record has not been used, copied or communicated during the period of its retention.”. I take the opportunity to wish the Minister of State well in her new role. We served together in the Seanad and it great to see her promotion. I am sure we will have many engagements in the coming months. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 deal with privileged material. In recent times, the Government has sometimes been slow to recognise the impact that some of this legislation could have on the protection of legal or journalistic privilege. Under section 32(3) and (4), the Bill allows for the compelled disclosure of potentially privileged material. This is subject to a subsequent High Court determination with a 30-day window to apply. The key word here is "subsequent". As currently drafted, the provision puts the cart before the horse. The 30-day window runs from the date of disclosure of taking of possession. An authorised officer has up to 30 days to apply to the High Court for a retroactive determination of privilege after he or she has already taken possession of that piece of digital evidence but there is nothing here that amounts to any sort of explicit ban or interim restraint on the use of that privileged material while the court application is pending. We believe that this is essential and have tabled these two amendments to make clear on the face of the Bill that where an authorised officer or adjudication officer compels disclosure or takes possession of a record, the record may be subject to legal privilege and they cannot use, copy, communicate or act upon that record before the High Court's determination. I hope the Government will look closely at these amendments and that common sense will prevail. We want to prevent any potential loopholes with this legislation and I hope the Minister of State can agree to our amendments.

Sentiment score: 0.34

I move amendment No. 9: In page 21, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(c) the prohibition on use, copying, communication or other action in respect of the record pending the final determination of the application, including such prohibition as against any person to whom the record may have been disclosed prior to the assertion of privilege.”.

Sentiment score: 0.20