Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Nov 1986

Vol. 369 No. 9

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Diplock Courts.

1.

asked the Taoiseach if he will confirm that he has received a communication from the British Prime Minister indicating that there will be no changes in the Diplock courts; and if he will comment on the matter.

In accordance with the general practice, I do not propose to say whether or not communications have been received from other Heads of State or Government or to comment on the detail of intergovernmental contacts. In so far as the courts system in Northern Ireland is concerned, the Deputy will be aware that matters arising from the Intergovernmental Conference, including those related to the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, are publicised in so far as this is possible in the communiqués issued after each meeting. copies of which are laid before this House.

I accept the Taoiseach's wish to adhere to normal practice in not disclosing communications of a confidential nature between Heads of Government. However, I would draw his attention to the fact that very positive statements which seem to emanate from Government sources appeared in our newspapers to the effect that such a letter was received. May I ask the Taoiseach if he would agree with me that the effect of the statement issued by Mr. King, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, clearly indicates that there is not to be any progress in regard to the question of the Diplock courts, that there are not to be any changes instituted in those courts?

The position is that major concerns of the two Governments as set out in Article 7(c) and Article 8 of the agreement are that the security forces in Northern Ireland be more readily accepted by the nationalist community, and the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice through seeking measures which would give substantial expression to this aim. In this connection the two Governments agreed to consider, inter alia, the possibility of mixed courts in both jurisdictions for the trial of certain offences so long as jury trials are impracticable because of the danger of intimidation of juries.

As the British Prime Minister has stated, there are difficulties in respect of this proposal which the British Government have not yet been able to see their way around, but that Government have not excluded the possibility of such an arrangement becoming feasible and acceptable as some future time. In the meantime other methods of ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice have been considered, including three man courts and a series of reforms in the system of justice, a number of which, as referred to by the Secretary of State in a speech last Saturday, have been welcomed by leaders of constitutional nationalism. That speech included references to the supergrass trial system which are reassuring. The Irish Government are continuing to press the issue of the number of judges in the Diplock non-jury courts and will continue to do so pending progress with mixed courts or the achievement of a situation in which a return to jury courts in Northern Ireland becomes practicable.

Does the Taoiseach agree that this question of the Diplock courts is a key issue and is something to which many people look as an instance of good faith or otherwise? Would the Taoiseach not agree with me that it is not the British Government's intention to institute any changes in these courts?

As far as the Government are concerned our objective is, as set out in the agreement, to achieve public confidence in the administration of justice through seeking measures which would give substantial expression to this aim. One element in that process could be the changes in the Diplock courts and one change could be either a mixed court or alternatively a three man court. We have pressed these points with the British Government and will continue to do so.

The Taoiseach is not addressing himself to the very clear questions which I am putting to him. My first question is if he would agree that this is a key and vital issue and is regarded as such by large sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Secondly, would he not agree with me that the present position is that there will not be any progress in regard to the issue of the Diplock courts?

The operation of the Diplock courts is and has been a key issue. In the past there has been concern among the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and in this State on that matter. The question of what changes can be made or need to be made in order to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice is a broad one with many elements. The one to which the Deputy refers is an important one.

May I ask the Taoiseach about another aspect of this matter?

This will be a final question.

Can the Taoiseach clear up for us the situation in regard to the statement by the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the fact that the Minister for Justice reacted immediately to that statement and indicated that he regarded it as very positive and encouraging, whereas the following day the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that the Government would study the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and then reach a conclusion on it? May I ask the Taoiseach which of these versions of events is correct? Was the Minister for Justice right in his immediate and instant reaction of optimism to the matter, or was the Minister for Foreign Affairs right when he indicated that the Government were going to study the statement and see what conclusion they would come to? Would the Taoiseach agree that there is only one conclusion they could come to, that is, that the statement represents no progress whatsoever?

On the contrary, the statement represents significant progress in a number of important areas. I am surprised that the Deputy should fail to recognise that. Many aspects of the system of justice in Northern Ireland have given rise to concern and the fact that a number of changes are being made, as announced by the Secretary of State, is encouraging. I would also point out that the last sentence of this statement was that "we must seek constantly to develop and improve the arrangements we make for the administration of justice in terrorist cases". What we are dealing with here is an ongoing process including the measures that have been mentioned by him. These are significant and deal with matters that have given rise in the past to considerable concern. The unique position in respect of the basis of arrest being grounds for suspicion but not reasonable grounds for suspicion in Northern Ireland is one of the major difficulties there. It has meant that people have been arrested in respect of whom there were not and could not be shown to be reasonable grounds for suspicion. That change, bringing the law there in line with the law in the rest of the UK, is very important in terms of how the Northern community are dealt with and consider themselves to be dealt with by the security forces.

The shifting of the onus in bail applications in scheduled cases is also important. Measures taken in regard to admission of confession of evidence are important also, where a very large number of convictions arise from confessions as, indeed, is the case in this State also. The change there is important as a safeguard.

The new rights of a suspect in custody to notify somebody within 48 hours that they are in custody, and to have a solicitor, are very important, and were missing for the whole period, including the period of violence of 17 years.

These measures, all of which are now to be incorporated in the law in Northern Ireland, cannot be dismissed lightly nor can the measures that have been taken to accelerate the process of hearings in Northern Ireland, because the extraordinary length of time that people have been held in custody and in many cases eventually found not guilty has been a major source of grievance and has given rise to a justified feeling of injustice. Quite significant and effective measures which are being taken to speed up the process are very important and are seen as such by the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland, and, I am sure, by the Unionist community, members who have suffered from the same problem of delays. What the Secretary of State had to say about supergrass trials was also significant and important.

The Leader of the Opposition in dismissing these changes is not being himself judicious, or is not giving due weight to matters which for people living in Northern Ireland who have gone through these last 17 years are important.

Of course, a few issues remain and, as the Secretary of State said, the process is ongoing. We will continue to seek further improvements in the administration of justice and further improvements under Article 7 (c) in relation to the acceptability of the security forces to the Nationalist community which is also fundamental to the achievement of peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

The Taoiseach did not deal with my principal question which was the different responses given by two of his Ministers to the statement by the Secretary of State. The statement which was issued immediately by the Minister for Justice welcoming the proposals as positive and constructive was followed by a different statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs who said that the Government would be considering them before reaching a conclusion. Perhaps the Taoiseach will reconcile the two statements.

They are two quite separate issues and I thought I dealt with them in what I have just said. On the one hand these measures are important and valuable and are greatly welcomed by constitutional Nationalists and perhaps more widely in the community in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, they do not exhaust the reforms or improvements needed in the system to make it fully acceptable. The Minister for Justice was reacting to the content of what was included in the Secretary of State's speech and, indeed, effectively expressed the view of the Government in so doing. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is quite rightly concerned, as are we all, with the ongoing process and, as co-chairman of the conference, must be concerned that the matters are not left at this point, satisfactory though these changes are in themselves, but that further issues are pursued. These two positions are totally in conformity one with the other.

Top
Share