The Government has asked the Garda to prepare a report on the use of phone-tap transcripts as evidence in criminal prosecutions.
The question of using material gathered from surveillance of telephone conversations was raised by politicians in September when the Dail debated new criminal legislation after the Omagh bombing.
In the last month the Garda has been asked to report to the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, on whether the law concerning the use of telephone tap conversations as evidence needs amending.
However, it is believed senior gardai do not want any extra provisions for the use of transcripts as routine evidence in court.
Unlike recent proposed changes to criminal law, such as a restriction on the right to silence, this matter has been referred to the Garda rather than requested by it.
Senior British police recently rejected a similar proposal, because they feared phone taps would lose their value as an intelligence-gathering tool if transcripts became routine prosecution evidence.
Intercepting a telephone conversation is a criminal offence unless it is authorised by the Minister for Justice for the purpose of a criminal investigation or in the interests of State security.
The Garda Commissioner or Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces must apply in writing to the Minister for an authorisation. The authorisation must be renewed every three months.
According to an expert in criminal law, telephone conversations obtained legally are technically admissible in court. But, in practice, intercepted phone-call evidence is not used in criminal prosecutions.
Transcripts of recorded conversations are used in most kidnapping cases, however, although these are generally made with the consent of the person receiving the call, usually a family member of the kidnap victim.
"Transcripts themselves would not be admissible without evidence identifying the speaker, where they were calling from and when the call was made. So they are a very complicated form of evidence," the expert said.
On Friday the Special Criminal Court ruled evidence of 19 calls made and received by Paul Ward, who was convicted of the murder of Veronica Guerin, could be described only as "supportive" rather than "corroborative" evidence.
The evidence just proved that "a large number of very short telephone calls passed between mobile phones" owned by Ward and another named gang member, the court ruled.
