Jim O'Keeffe
Question:2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice whether the Government has agreed, in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to the need for effective procedures for extradition.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Extradition Procedures.
The Government have always accepted the need for effective procedures for dealing with fugitive offenders. The Anglo-Irish Agreement, of course, provides a framework within which the continuing effectiveness of existing procedures for dealing with such offenders, whether by way of extradition or extra-territorial trial, can be monitored and kept under review. The House will be aware that, at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in London on 19 April, officials were instructed to undertake a review of the situation pertaining to arrangements for dealing with fugitive offenders, addressing both extradition and the possibilities afforded by the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976, and to report back to a future meeting of the conference. That review is now in progress.
Does the Minister accept that no person charged with offences of violence against the person or relating to firearms or explosives should be entitled to hide behind the political offence exemption?
As I have already said, the whole question of a review of extradition and extra-territorial trial is being undertaken at present as a result of the decision of 19 April last of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference held in London. The issues the Deputy has mentioned will undoubtedly be covered in that review.
While I accept that these matters may come under discussion in the context of a review, I am asking the Minister a direct question in relation to his own outlook, his policy and his view. May I put it directly to the Minister as to whether he will agree that no person charged with the offence of violence should be entitled to hide behind the political offence exemption?
The courts have ruled in relation to some of these aspects. I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to be a lawyer. As far as I am concerned, my role is to bring forward appropriate amending legislation — if that is so decided by court decision or as a result of reviews — and that is where the position stands. It is not a question of my personal view; that is irrelevant in this matter. It is a matter of whether the Government and the courts of the land decide or make judgments in relation to legislation already enacted by this House; whether they decide it is sufficient or insufficient.
I note the evasive response of the Minister to that direct question which is central to the entire issue. The Minister has stated that the Government fully agreed on the need for effective procedures for extradition. He has no option but to accept that because it is included in the review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Conference. Would the Minister now accept that there are obvious gaping loopholes in our extradition laws arising from recent Supreme Court decisions? If the Minister really believes the need for effective extradition arrangements will he confirm that he will introduce the necessary amending legislation to close those gaping loopholes?
There is legislation which has been enacted by this House which has never yet been tested in the courts. We will await the outcome of any such test case in the courts. It is strange to suggest that one should introduce legislation and then, prior to it ever being tested in the courts, come into the House and suggest that it should be changed. There is a review going on in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The legislation in relation to extradition is on the Statute Book. There are also the extra-territorial trial procedures in the 1976 Act. There is a wide body of legislation available in relation to extradition. In case there is any misunderstanding about the situation, and as the Deputy is trying to suggest that the Government are less than sincere on this issue, I would reiterate that we have always accepted the need for effective procedures when dealing with fugitive offenders. That is the Government's view and it is my view.
Has the Minister taken legal advice on the consequences of the Finucane and Carron decisions in the Supreme Court, in so far as they affect our extradition laws? Has that advice indicated to him that changes in legislation are necessary?
That seems to be a separate matter, Deputy.
It is strictly to the point, Sir.
I am proceeding now to deal with other questions.
I must put it to you that it arises directly from this question.
The Chair must be obeyed in these matters, Deputy.
I am always one who has the greatest respect for the Chair but I would respectfully put it to you——
Perhaps the Deputy will rephrase his question.
I would put it to the Minister that the Finucane and Carron decisions in the Supreme Court radically change——
That is a separate matter.
They were extradition cases.
It deals with the Anglo-Irish agreement in respect of procedures for extradition.
To further rephrase my question, can I put it to the Minister that we cannot have effective procedures for extradition, as we are committed to under the Anglo-Irish agreement, unless the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Carron and Finucane cases are taken into account, and unless we are prepared to make the necessary changes in our legislation to close the loopholes which have become obvious as a result of those two decisions? In that context, and from the point of view of having effective extradition arrangements, as agreed in the Anglo-Irish agreement, has the Minister taken legal advice on the consequences of those decisions and on the need for such new legislation?
We are having an expansion of this question.
As the Deputy will be aware, the agreement was in relation to the implementation of the European Convention on Terrorism, and that has been implemented fully without reservation, unlike many of the other countries that ratified it. As far as the implications of any cases are concerned, of course they are looked at by the law officers of this State at all times.
Has the Minister bothered to look at it? The Minister is evading his responsibilities.
I totally reject that. Just because the Deputy happens to come in here with his point of view as an Opposition Deputy does not mean he is right. It was his party that introduced the legislation which has not——
I have gone to the trouble of getting legal advice on this. Why has the Minister not?
I told the Deputy the Attorney General advised us.
The Minister is the person who has responsibility to ensure these arrangements are properly in place.
This should not give rise to disorder. I have called the next question.