Of course we know the work of some people is beyond accountability, but that is for another day and another subject.

The Government’s new Bill on “Surveillance” is certainly a necessary topic for a CPD seminar, not least in that the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, in announcing it to the media, laconically, but defiantly, remarked that it would cause upset in “human rights quarters” (or words to the same effect).

Now, to whom was he referring? We can only say with confidence that he was not referring to the Government: (the Bill is a collective product of Government, not the work of the Minister).

Implicitly he was referring to the judiciary. Each judge in Ireland is sworn (and has sworn) to defend, protect and vindicate human rights. The Minister has given clear warning that the Government’s Bill is calculated to injure, in some way, human rights in Ireland.

Keeping that in mind, it would be naïve to think that breaches of human rights under this Bill will be confined to some areas of County Limerick. No, we may expect the breaches, of which the Minister warns, to occur across the country.

So, the CPD seminar or seminars will have to cater to professionals in every county in the country. Bring it on.

Hopefully, the Government’s vandalism will run up against systemic opposition; senior Gardai are currently attending countrywide seminars on the application of human rights in policing. Perhaps the things they learn (but there will always be dunces) will permit them to do their jobs correctly and not as the latest political lifebelt dictates.

Neither Minister noticed, as Advocate-General Bot now says, that he was attending a Community institution, as opposed to a Union institution.

Each had, of course, read the draft Directive (presumably) and there they saw it was replete with material proper to the Union (and not the Community). It was, in short all about “police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters”. It was expressly proposed by Charles Clarke in the light of the London bombings.
Terrorism, no less.
No common market in terrorism, then.
Right, definitely a matter for Title VI of the EU Treaty.
No, said the Commission Staff. It’s all about a level playing field in the world of commerce.

Ireland and Slovakia have a vote, but not a veto. Done and dusted, then.

What-ho, Advocate-General Bot says the same.

In fact, Directive 2006/24/EC is all about facilitating surveillance by Member governments through the telecoms system. It places a burden on the telecoms and that burden has a cost. But any police activity has a cost, and nobody has yet tried to argue that the cost of a social issue renders it an economic issue.

Bot and the Commission define things by their form, not their substance.

A small state in the EU has no veto if the Commission wishes to deny it a veto.

An institution that loses integrity is a lost cause. When the current Commission is gone from office matters like this will surface and destroy its successor.

Between

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

UPDATE (16/7/2008)

1. Judge McKechnie has reserved judgment on the remaining issues before the Court.

2.The Plaintiff has asked the Court to refer the issue of the validity of Directive 2006/24/EC to the ECJ. The State had brought this question to the ECJ. (The hearing began in the ECJ the very morning the Motions opened before Judge McKechnie). The Plaintiff endorses the State case but goes further; it says the Directive is not valid, not simply on procedural grounds, but on substantive grounds of breach of human rights and the fundamental law of the EU. This is a very important difference between the State and the Plaintiff on the Directive point.

3. The State had asked the Court to deny locus standi to the Plaintiff and, in default of success on that request, asked that the Court order the Plaintiff to furnish security for costs to the State. Judgement on these points has also been reserved.

4. At time of writing, no reply has been received from Hans-Gert Pottering, the President of the EU Parliament to the letter McGarr Solicitors sent to him.

In a similar critical mind, the House of Lords has proposed, as reported HERE, the criminalization of abuse or recklessness with respect to personal data.

The problem is considerable even at the level of mere carelessness as seen HERE.
An equally serious problem is abuse by State agencies and quangos; an example HERE.

As can be seen from the terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to treat dog fouling or the like as a suitable cause to authorize surveillance is to act disproportionably to minor problems such as, well, dog fouling.

A zealot is never a reasonable person and seems capable even of shooting-oneself-in-the-foot behaviour, as seen HERE.

Between

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

The Department of Justice has published the draft Statutory Instrument whereby Ireland proposes to transpose Directive 2006/24/EC into Irish law. See HERE.

The Irish Times is critical of the contents of the draft and doubtful as to its legality.

See HERE.