Source: http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2007/08/new-surveillance-in-ireland.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:54:34+00:00

Document:
TJ, The recent cases of Braddish and Dunne are most interesting with respect to convictions that were unsafe and recordings that were lost and indeed establishing a duty, per Hardiman J., on An Garda Siochana to seek out and preserve CCTV evidence. These cases are available on irlii.org. Of course the cases of Connolly and Diver are exemplary with respect to admission of video recording equipment/evidence and duty to avail of and utilise video under custody. RL.
Comment 2. Don't we all already know that R v. Chaulk and the Doctrine of Proportionality is a judicial hook on which to hang infractions of constitutional rights!? The first part of the test is often not cited in many contemporaneous judgements [It says more or less, here goes, we will infringe a right]. Heaney v. Ireland contains it correctly per Costello, J. Subsequent judgements are remiss in only stating the second part of the test: Glencar v. Mayo Co. Co., In re. Article 26 of the Health Amendment Bill 2005 and Planning and Development Bill Part V, 2000. The cases of Hempenstall and Gorman v. Minister for the Environment are useful to see the 'diet' application of the doctrine [Taxi and Hackney cases].
So one might ask whether its better to plead for incompatibility under the ECHR in the first instance, [Grace v. Ireland] or is that also a complete waste of time? More case law would appear to exist in defence of rights, Copland v. UK, Klass v. Germany etc. Plaintiffs might also be able to get some ex gratia payments from the government.
I find it amazing that we can vindicate the constitutional rights of total scrotes, yet we find it burdensome to move towards rights based adjudication. See also, Charleton J. in Doherty v. Dunlaoghaire Rathdown Co Co. [Non-justiciability].
Those are good points re the use of CCTV in other cases and I completely agree that it's not a new phenomenon. Mobile phone location records were also used before in DPP v. Murphy  IE CCA 1. What I would suggest is different about the O'Reilly case is the way in which ubiquitous surveillance gave us, for the first time in Ireland, a prosecution case based entirely on electronic evidence entirely unsupported by traditional eyewitness or forensic evidence.
I have just returned from hols in Italy where on seeking to access the Internet at an Internet cafe I was informed that I had to first produce my passport!!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.