Benefits The AVR of police interviews has become standard practice for Ireland. As professionals consulted in the framework of this project highlighted, this practice is of benefit not only to detained persons but also to police and it is in the interests of justice and the administration of justice. It has been highlighted that police Gardaí “regard the facility as a safeguard for both the Gardaí and the interviewee alike.”56 The Secretary General of the Department of Justice highlighted in 2003, how: “Solicitors are full of praise for the [AVR] system because, in their view, it is a marked improvement on the situation where nobody knew precisely what had happened in the making of statements. There were a lot of arguments about what had actually happened when somebody was taken in for interview. It is now all on tape.“57 The practice can provide a safeguard for the police in protecting against any allegations of ill-treatment during interviews in police custody. However, as experts highlight, despite the benefits of this practice, it has not prevented all ill-treatment in Garda stations in Ireland.58 The CPT noted in their report on their visit to Ireland in 2006 that AVR had become mandatory for certain offences in Ireland. The CPT noted: “The findings during the 2006 visit suggest that audio-video recording in the interrogation rooms of Garda stations may have been a significant contributing factor to reducing the amount of ill-treatment alleged by persons detained under the above-mentioned legislation. By contrast, the CPT’s delegation found that persons arrested and interviewed by the police, who did not fall within the above legislation and hence whose interviews were not usually audio-video recorded, ran a greater risk of ill-treatment by Garda officers. This was particularly the case when the suspects were foreign and/or drug addicts.”59 The courts in Ireland have also stressed the importance of ensuring that interviews are recorded. For a number of years, the former Court of Criminal Appeal60 warned An Garda Síochána that a failure to record interviews without extraordinary circumstances justifying such a failure could result in any admissions or confessions obtained being excluded from trial, emphasising that AVRs were vital to the integrity of the investigative process.61 Similarly, the Morris Tribunal, a public inquiry set up in 2002 to investigate policing complaints acknowledged the importance of the practice of AVRs of interviews for protecting the rights of interviewees and safeguarding interviewers from false allegations of ill-treatment.62 Another benefit highlighted by the Morris Tribunal is that it can be “a very effective tool by which they [An Garda Síochána] can review the performance of their interviewers and learn from any mistakes that are evident from any particular interview.”63 It also recommended that, in line with good practice from other jurisdictions, “consideration be given to the external audio visual monitoring of interviews as they progress, in particular in respect of interviews concerning more serious crime and that this monitoring be conducted by a senior officer, preferably an interview specialist in a position to offer appropriate advice.”64 Thus, the practice of AVRs could improve the conduct of interviews, both in real time if external monitoring were introduced, and in terms of capacity building and training by the review of the recordings. 56. Steering Committee on Audio and Audio/Video Recording of Garda Questioning of Detained Persons, Third Report, 2004, p. 9, https://www. justice.ie/en/JELR/AudioVideoReport.pdf/Files/AudioVideoReport.pdf, [hereinafter: AVR Committee Report 2004]. 57. Committee of Public Accounts, Special Report No. 5 - Garda Interview Recording Systems, 26 June 2003, <https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/committee_of_public_accounts/2003-06-26/3/>. 58. Dr. Vicky Conway and Prof. Yvonne Daly, ‘From Legal Advice to Legal Assistance: Recognising the Changing Role of the Solicitor in the Garda Station’, (2019), 3 IJSJ. 59. CPT, Report on Ireland, 2006, CPT/Inf (2007) 40, § 19, https://rm.coe.int/1680696c96. 60. Now simply the ‘Court of Appeal’ since the Court of Appeal Act 2014 came into effect. 61. See People (DPP) v. Connolly [2003] 2 IR 1, People (DPP) v. Murphy [2005] 4 IR 504 and People (DPP) v. Diver [2005] 3 IR 270. 62. Morris Tribunal, Report of the Tribunal Inquiry - Report on the detention of ‘suspects’ following the death of the late Richard Barron on the 14th of October 1996 and related detentions and issues, Volume 3, 2008, pp. 1244-1245, ,https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/publications/general-reports/morris-tribunal-report-vol-3.pdf>, p. 1244-1245. 63. ibid, p. 1218. 64. ibid. 18 Consultations with professionals in the context of this project highlighted the benefits and presented by AVR. It was cited as one of the most important protections safeguarding the rights of detained persons. An AVR can lead to the clarification of important discrepancies that may be key to the defence of the case. Both defence lawyers who were consulted outlined different cases when the AVR demonstrated a different meaning to a phrase than was ascribed to it in the transcript due, for example, to a gesture, that was integral to the successful defence of a case. How it came about AVR of police interviews is not a new procedural safeguard in Ireland.65 The Irish Criminal Justice Act 1984 already envisaged the power of the Minister for Justice to introduce it.66 However, these regulations were not introduced until 1997. The road that paced the way for the adoption of these regulations started in 1977 following a report by Amnesty International into allegations of ill-treatment in garda custody. It wasn’t until November 1989, when the Irish Government established a Committee to enquire into certain aspects of Criminal Procedure, the Martin Committee.67 The establishment of this Committee followed a number of scandals and cases of miscarriages of such as the reversal in the United Kingdom (UK) of the “Guildford Four” wrongful convictions for the Guildford pub bombings carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army in the UK and other Irish miscarriages of justice in the UK.68 Thus, it was a political priority at the time to ensure that the procedural rights of detained persons were respected to avoid further miscarriages of justice. Audio recording had been introduced in the UK in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, following “growing judicial and public criticism of police conduct when dealing with suspects” including in relation to the Guildford Four case.69 In 1990, the Martin Committee recommended that the questioning of detained persons should be recorded audio-visually and this practice should be introduced on a pilot scheme basis in selected police stations.70 A Steering Committee on Audio and Audio/Video Recording of Garda questioning of detained persons was established in 1993.71 Under its supervision, a pilot scheme operated in selected Garda 65. By way of background on other procedural rights in custody: there is no mandatory representation in police interviews in Ireland although lawyers have been allowed attend interviews since 2014 by way of an informal agreement. This is due to be codified into law by the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2021. Ireland only opted in to the EU Directives on the right to information and the Directive on interpretation and translation. Ireland has not opted into the other Directives on access to a lawyer, legal aid, procedural safeguards for children, presumption of innocence and the right to silence. 66. Criminal Justice Act 1984, section 27(1) <https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1984/act/22/enacted/en/html>. 67. Dáil Éireann debate, 29 November 1989 <https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1989-11-29/36/>. The Committee’s mandate was “Given that uncorroborated inculpatory admissions made by a suspected or accused person to the Garda Síochana can be sufficient evidence to ground a conviction, to examine whether additional safeguards are needed to ensure that such admissions are properly obtained and recorded and to make recommendations accordingly.” 68. In 1989 the Guildford Four were released after 15 years in prison. In 1990 the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven were also released. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice set up in their wake reported in 1993, Royal Commission, Report on Criminal Justice (Cmd 2263, 1993), also known as the Runciman Report, <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/271971/2263.pdf>. R. v. Anne Maguire, Patrick Joseph Maguire, William John Smyth, Vincent Maguire, Patrick Joseph Paul Maguire, Patrick O’Neill and Patrick Conlon (1991) 94 Crim. App. R. 133. Other examples include the Sallins Mail Train Robbery in 1976 which Nicky Kelly was pardoned in 1992 after being sentenced in 1978 to 12 years in prison for a crime he did not commit following a conviction primarily based on a forced confession, see “Former councillor Nicky Kelly, wrongfully convicted of Sallins train robbery, said he is 45 years waiting for apology”, Irish Independent, 19 January 2022, <https://www.independent.ie/regionals/wicklow/news/former-councillor-nicky-kelly-wrongfully-convicted-of-sallins-train-robbery-said-he-is-45-years-waiting-for-apology-41253859.html>. Osgur Breatnach was also wrongfully convicted for this high-profile robbery and continues to seek justice today. See “Osgur Breatnach’s dogged 45-year search for justice”, Irish Independent, 4 September 2021, <https://www. irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-40372718.html>. See also Dr Vicky Conway, Not too late for State to atone for past crimes’, the Irish Examiner, 26 January 2022,<https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40792812.html>. And 69. KRW Law, ‘The role of the solicitor at the police station’, (2017), p. 1, <https://krw-law.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/The-Role-of-a-Solicitor-in-the-Police-Station-PACE-IPLS-8.3.17.pdf>. 70. AVR Committee Report 2004, p. 1. 71. The Committee’s mandate was two-fold. First, to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, in relation to field trials: their location, essential modifications to be made to interview rooms, police training required, the type of equipment to be used, whether any amendments to the Judges’ Rules may be necessary, special arrangements for organised crime or terrorism cases to ensure, in particular, that intelligence gathering is not affected, a code of practice on inter alia the suspected person’s rights, admissions off camera (at the scene, on the way to the station, etc.), interruption of the interview for any reason, technical breakdowns during the interview, opportunity for the suspected person to clarify etc. Secondly, to make arrangements in relation to the pilot scheme on stringent scientific monitoring of the scheme, assessment of the operation and cost of the scheme, the likely effects 19