The Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009 has today been signed into law by the President.
The Act, which came into force on July 12th, 2009, provides a statutory framework for evidence obtained by means of covert surveillance to be used in criminal trials.
For the first time, An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and the Revenue Commissioners will have a basis in law to carry out covert surveillance to combat serious criminal, subversive or terrorist activity, a statement from the Department said.
Announcing the enactment of the legislation, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said: "The changing nature of crime, particularly the growth of organised and ruthless gangs, requires a stepping up in the security response.
"The threat to society and to the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system itself posed by these gangs, in particular attacks on ordinary people going about their daily lives, requires a corresponding robust legal response - this legislation is part of that response.
" Safeguards built into the legislation include strict qualifying criteria, a complaints procedure and judicial oversight. The Act also provides for strict rules regarding the disclosure of evidence in order to protect the identity of witnesses and to preserve the integrity, effectiveness and security of operations."
The Minster said the Act would complement the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009, which is set to be signed into law.
"The use of sophisticated surveillance devices is an essential tool in today's fight against serious crime and I am determined that the agencies of the State involved in law enforcement will have every available tool in their armoury," Mr Ahern said.
However, last month a leading prosecuting barrister warned the Bill could change the relationship between An Garda Síochána and the public, and was unlikely to achieve its aim of reducing gangland crime.
Barrister Seán Gillane said the Bill was being sold as “give us your right to privacy and we’ll nail the gangland bosses”. However, it would fail, and there would be a lot of legal and philosophical casualties along the way, he added.