Vol. 560 No. 5
12 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress made to date in his consideration of the report of the Hederman Committee on the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2920/03]
As I stated in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 75 of 27 November 2002, the Report of the Committee to Review the Offences against the State Acts 1939 to 1998 is an extensive one, deals with complex issues of law and policy and involves important considerations concerning the balance to be struck between national and international security on the one hand and civil liberties and individual rights on the other.
Those recommendations in the report of direct relevance to the purpose and scope of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002 were considered in the context of the preparation of that legislation. The Bill accordingly will give effect to a limited number of recommendations to that end. A fuller consideration of the recommendations of the committee will be finalised once this Bill has been enacted and I will then bring further proposals to the Government.
As I said yesterday, the Good Friday Agreement made provision for a process to try to normalise criminal legislation here. In that context we were looking specifically at emergency legislation such as the Offences Against the State Act, juryless courts and so on. The intention under the Agreement would have been to ensure greater normalisation of legislation of that nature between the North and the Republic. However, with the terrorist legislation we are going in the opposite direction if anything. I understand that the majority on the committee which recommended the status quo was made up of civil servants from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, while it was the law officers who recommended normalising the situation. What is the Minister's view?
The report is a very valuable one. I launched it and spoke in its praise at that time because it contains two very different perspectives. The Deputy is right that Judge Hederman, who chaired the group, sided with the minority on many important issues. That was an unusual but welcome feature of the report in that it showed there was complete freedom of thought and freshness of approach in the committee's deliberations.
The Deputy will know that I am an inveterate jury man. I believe in jury trials whenever possible. I regard special courts as a phenomenon which should be avoided if at all possible. However, I reiterate that the Good Friday Agreement sought a normalisation of the courts procedures north and south of the Border. In the fullness of time I intend to bring before the House arrangements to strengthen jury trials as I want to make juries and witnesses less susceptible to being intimidated and tampered with. In the meantime, the greatest single factor obstructing the normalisation of the administration of justice in Ireland is the continuing subversive threat. If we are talking about completion of the Good Friday Agreement, the greatest contribution would be an end to the subversive threat from all of those who have arms dumped or who, in dissident form, are attacking the foundations of the State and attempting to re-ignite a civil war in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, as long as those factors are at play it is difficult for me, an inveterate supporter of jury trial, to normalise the situation as quickly as I would wish.
The Minister has four and a half years.
I hope I do not have to wait four and a half years for people to honour their commitments to the Good Friday Agreement.,
