The joint select committee reviewing the 2015 Data Protection Act has agreed to accommodate further discussions between the Attorney General’s Department (AGD) and the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency (MOCA) over the current evaluation of the Act.

The decision was made following a request from Government member Senator Natalie Campbell Rodriquez at Thursday’s meeting of the committee that the two public bodies continue to meet until they are satisfied that the soon-to-be amended Act will satisfactorily protect members of MOCA in carrying out their duties.

Responding to Crown Counsel Jeffery Foreman’s contention that the Bill is adequately supportive of MOCA’s mission to disrupt corruption and computer crimes, or crimes in which devices are used, Campbell Rodriquez suggested that the independent law enforcement agency was instead “crying out for help”.

“MOCA handles cybercrimes, and if they are reaching out to say, ‘Listen, we are having difficulties with this’, I am again recommending a meeting between them and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), because they are crying out for help, they are saying, ‘We are not able to do what we need to do’, as written. Maybe there is not going to be any substantive change, but they are there on the ground every day trying to prosecute, trying to investigate and trying to ensure that the law is maintained, and they are having trouble,” she argued.

“I am just very hesitant to go against any of MOCA’s recommendations,” she added, referring to the questions which the agency raised in its submission to the committee, and which Foreman had explained were sufficient to protect it from breaching the rights of suspects whose activities and devices were liable to be seized and the contents erased prior to their trial.

Foreman noted that his office had met with representatives of MOCA and explained to them that they were covered by the contents of the law. However, he said that they did not indicate to his department that they had difficulties in the past “exercising their powers” under the current legislation.

“It appeared to us that they were proffering an interpretation of the legislation, or using their skills of interpreting and not specifically that they had an issue,” the attorney told the committee.

Rodriquez was supported by fellow Government Senator Kavan Gayle, who urged the attorney to give the MOCA team another opportunity, where they could interface with the DPP to further clarify the issues.

“That might bring a different conclusion supporting [the questions] asked by MOCA. So I see no difficulty in allowing that interface to take place,” Senator Gayle added.

Chairman of the committee Daryl Vaz, the minister of science, energy and technology, agreed that with the opposition raised by the members of the committee, he had no choice but to delay a vote on the answers provided by Foreman.

“The sensitivity of the issue is worth it, so that we can try and get a consensus. If not, obviously, the issues MOCA has raised will remain outstanding,” he said, before suspending further discussion on the issues.

MOCA had sought a number of explanations from the AGD in its submission, including those on search and seizure measures, such as when can the agency seize devices from suspects and what would happen if the suspect is freed in court and the data were already removed from the device.

However, Foreman said that in those circumstances, the police would still benefit from the power of search, as there was no mechanism instructing law enforcement agencies as to how they may seek to make such data inaccessible, or for moving the device from its location to police protection.