Vol. 397 No. 9
11 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement on the review of extradition expected after the recent meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference; the role which his Department will play in the review; and the changes in extradition legislation which he expects as a result.
12 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice whether, in the light of recent court judgments, he accepts that there is a need for new legislation to ensure effective extradition arrangements; and, if so, his proposals in this regard.
50 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement about the Supreme Court decision in the case of Finucane and Clarke.
56 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Justice if the implications of a recent Supreme Court judgment in regard to extradition give rise to any need for changes in legislation; if the Government have discussed such implications; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
61 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Justice if the Government have considered the implications for extradition of the Supreme Court judgment of 13th March, 1990 in the Clarke and Finucane cases.
I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 11 and 12 and Questions Nos. 50, 56 and 61 together.
The recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the Finucane, Clarke and Carron cases arose from appeals taken in respect of orders for extradition which were made by the District Court under Part III of the Extradition Act, 1965. In reaching those decisions the Supreme Court applied the law to the isssues argued before it on the basis of the facts established in the proceedings. That is the function and indeed the duty of the courts. Under the Constitution the Judiciary are, of course, independent in the exercise of their functions and are pledged to uphold the Constitution and the law.
Our extradition code now comprises three Acts of the Oireachtas — the Extradition Act, 1965, the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, and the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. It is important to note that the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, did not apply to the three cases in question because the warrants in those cases were issued before the commencement of that Act. However, that Act will apply to any future extradition case in which the warrants which form the basis of the proceedings were issued after 1 December, 1987, the date on which the Act commenced.
The Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, gives effect in our law to the Council of Europe Convention of that name. The Act implements article 1 of the convention in full and consequently provides that the offences specified in that article shall, for extradition purposes, never be regarded as political offences or offences connected with political offences. The Act also contains special provisions relating to the offences covered by article 2 of the convention, which is an optional article, whereby those offences are not to be regarded as political offences in certain circumstances. In addition, the Act provides that nothing will prevent a determination being made that an offence is not a political offence in circumstances or by reason of considerations other than those referred to in the Act itself.
The provisions of the 1987 Act fully meet the obligations we undertook in signing the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and enabled this country to ratify it without recourse to a reservation permitted by Article 13. Article 13 allows contracting States to make reservations in respect of the application of article 1 — in effect to refuse extradition for an offence covered by article 1 which it considers to be a political offence provided certain specified matters have been considered in reaching that decision. Ireland is one of only eight countries to have acceded to the convention without entering a reservation. The remaining 14 parties to the convention — Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland — have entered reservations.
In addressing the issues raised by the court decisions to which attention is drawn in these questions, it should be stressed that the 1987 Act has, as yet, not been relied on in any case decided by the courts. That Act is, therefore, untried and assumptions should not be made in regard to what some choose to describe as its limitations.
My comments so far have been largely directed towards those aspects of the recent Supreme Court decisions that concerned the political offence exception. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that, quite irrespective of the provisions of any legislation governing extradition, neither Mr. Finucane nor Mr. Clarke would have been extradited because the Supreme Court concluded that to have done so would have infringed their constitutional rights. Indeed, in the case of Mr. Clarke no reliance was ultimately placed on the political offence exception and the ground upon which his release was sought and granted was solely that of his constitutional rights. In reaching its conclusion on these issues, the Supreme Court was influenced by the findings of the present Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in his judgment in a case known as the Pettigrew case, which was a civil action taken against the Northern Ireland Office and the Governor of the Maze Prison by a Maze prisoner arising from events occurring in the aftermath of the 1983 escape.
It is also important to recognise that, apart from extradition, our law provides another method of dealing with fugitive offenders. That is the extra-territorial method whereby, notably under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, our courts have jurisdiction to try persons for certain serious offences committed in Northern Ireland and, in certain circumstances, elsewhere. The Government are committed to the use of both methods to tackle the problem of fugitive offenders in appropriate cases. The Government also believe that there is scope for greater use of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 in such cases.
As the joint statement issued following the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Inter-governmental Conference in London on 19 April records, officials were instructed to undertake a review of the situation pertaining to arrangements for dealing with fugitive offenders and to report back to a future meeting of the conference. That review will not be confined solely to extradition but will also cover the possibilities afforded by the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. My Department will, of course, be participating in that review. When that review has been completed, the matter will be looked at again in the intergovernmental conference.
Will the Minister not agree that there is apparent conflict and confusion in the whole area of extradition and that as a result of various Supreme Court decisions and of the legislation as at present available to the courts, there is an urgent need for a review of this whole area? Would the Minister agree also that this review can take place only in a political framework and should involve all political parties on this island but at the very least in the Republic of Ireland in arriving at a consensus on the issue?
No, I do not accept the need for that at all. We already have the legislation in place. The 1987 Act and the scope and application of it have as yet to be tested in our courts. I suggest that it would be very unusual to amend an Act before the opportunity had arisen for it to be tested before the courts. Also, it should not be forgotten that there exists, as I have said already, an alternative to extradition, namely, the possibility for extra-territorial trial under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. Therefore, I do not accept the point made by the Deputy.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. I will call Deputy Kavanagh again.
I want to raise two questions on this issue. Would the Minister not agree that it would be outrageous that political exemption be available to somebody who committed a murder with a non-automatic weapon such as a revolver and that, in the light of recent court decisions, such a scenario is possible under the 1987 Act?
As I have said, it is far too early yet to decide on the 1987 Act. It is worth bearing in mind that that Act was designed to give effect to the Council of Europe Convention of that name and that it meets our obligations totally under that Convention. It is also worth bearing in mind that in addition to section 3 of the Act which provides that certain offences are not to be regarded as political offences or offences connected with political offences, section 4 provides that other serious offences which are not already covered by the exclusion are not to be regarded as political offences where a court, having given due consideration to any particularly serious aspects of the offence concerned, is of the opinion that the offence cannot properly be regarded as a political offence. Furthermore, to answer directly the question the Deputy asked, it will, of course, be open to the courts to decide that the political offence exception does not apply in any particular case on the basis of the reasoning and judgments in recent cases. I suggest strongly to the Deputies that they should not make assumptions about the scope or the application of the 1987 Act in circumstances where those matters have yet to be tested in the courts. I suggest that this Chamber is not the place to argue such details, that they are a matter for the courts of the land.
Secondly, our concern is, of course, to ensure that we do not close the stable door after the horse has bolted. In relation to section 4 there is a reference to "persons", not a person, but that is not the main point. Will the Minister accept that there is a European dimension here, that the European Convention to a degree is outdated in the light of 1992 and that in the context of open borders and open frontiers there will have to be discussion and decision at EC level to ensure that those open frontiers without efficient extradition might lead to chaos? Will the Minister agree that even from that point of view there is need for an urgent review of our legislation in conjunction with the legislation of the other member states of the EC?
If the Deputy is asking whether there is a need for a review of the Convention, that is a separate thing. As far as the review of the Convention is concerned a working party are involved in looking at the extent etc. of the Convention and of various conventions dealing with terrorism and criminal acts generally within Europe. That is going on within the Council of Europe.
Surely the Minister will agree that we have a problem with regard to terrorism that other European countries or signatories to the Convention do not have. Will he not agree that it is necesary for us to look at the situation on that basis and will he inform the House as to what the views of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State are on the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, since he said it has not been tested? Obviously, that part of the country which is otherwise affected by the problem of terrorism should have at least given the Minister its view at this stage on the adequacy or otherwise of that Act.
The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act has been tested. There have been 16 cases before it and 13 of them have been prosecuted successfully. As far as the individual views of the Secretary of State are concerned, I would not presume to answer on his behalf.
Let us proceed now to deal with questions to the Minister for Communications.
Would the Minister——
Is there a time limit?
The time is almost up for priority questions, but I will facilitate the Deputy if he will be brief.
Does the Minister not accept that there are considerable limits on the use to which the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act can be put and, that there can be major problems from the point of view of the attendance of witnesses etc. and, for that reason, that there is great need to have efficient extradition arrangements in place?
First, Is do not accept that there should be any reason for problems in regard to the appearance of witnesses.
From abroad.
Our security forces are capable of supplying any cover for witnesses. In fact, there is such a case in progress at the moment. As far as the update of the Extradition Act is concerned, I remind the Deputy that he is asking me to change an Act which was introduced by his own party when they were in Government in 1987 and which has not so far been tested in the courts of this land. Surely that is ludicrous.
There have been decisions on others in the meantime.
They relate to 1965.
On a point of order, I tabled a question which the Minister refused to answer regarding the establishment of community radio, despite the fact that it is he who must license community radio.
Sorry, Deputy Bruton, there are other ways of raising such matters.
Could you advise me, Sir?
It is not proper to intervene now on such a matter.
Could you advise me——
My office will be glad to facilitate the Deputy in every way.
Sir, I contacted your office.
The Deputy might do me the kindness of considering the matter he has raised.
