Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motions

Minister for Justice (Deputy Helen McEntee)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2022 and ending on 29th June, 2023.

The motions before Deputies today seek the continuation in force of important provisions in law aimed at combating terrorism and organised crime. As Minister for Justice I am required to lay reports before the Oireachtas on the use of the relevant provisions in the two Acts covering the past 12 months up to 31 May 2022. Those reports were placed before the House on 7 June 2022.

These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure the Garda and the courts are in a position to meet the challenge laid down by those opponents of peace. Section 18 of the 1998 Act provides that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at least annually if they are to remain in force. The report laid before this House includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use of the provisions in question over the past 12 months and a table setting out reported usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. It is notable that eight of the 12 provisions to be renewed, sections 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 17, have not been utilised during the reporting period. Of course, the fact a provision is not used in a particular year does not mean it is redundant or unnecessary, because the usage of different sections can vary from year to year.

The report also provides a brief assessment of the security situation. I should caution, however, that there are clear constraints on the detail of what is and can be reported to ensure there is no danger of prejudice to the investigation or prosecution of crime or the security of the State. The Garda assessment remains that the primary security threat in the State remains that from republican paramilitary groups, the so-called dissident groups, which have their origins in the Provisional IRA and the INLA. As Deputies know, these groups are steadfast in their opposition to peace and democracy and, regrettably, they remain wedded to brutality and criminality. It is imperative our laws and our authorities are properly equipped to deal with the threat. Let no one be under any illusion these groups do not represent a threat to this State as well as to Northern Ireland. It is clearly established these groups operate hand in hand with organised criminals, and their behaviour is indistinguishable from such elements.

North-South co-operation in this area is crucial. The benefits of that co-operation are obvious from successful joint operations between An Garda Síochána and the PSNI, such as the cross-Border investigation targeting organised crime connected to the INLA. There is a long shared history between the two jurisdictions in counteracting terrorism on the island. This strong co-operation continues post Brexit and it is vital we continue to preserve and build on this co-operation.

As Minister for Justice I pay tribute to the members of An Garda Síochána and the PSNI who continue to work tirelessly to preserve life and to counter all threats from terrorism. Paramilitaries have consistently demonstrated that they are ruthless, reckless and cowardly. They continue with their attempts to murder and maim PSNI officers, and despite the recent lowering of the threat level in Northern Ireland, the State cannot be complacent in this regard. We must be clear in our determination that they will not succeed. It is my firm view the provisions I am seeking renewal of today are important in supporting An Garda Síochána in its efforts to investigate, disrupt and dismantle the activities of terrorists.

Of course, while the 1998 Act was a response to a domestic threat, as an open democracy it is very important we do not lose sight of the threat from international terrorism. We are not immune from this threat. Many provisions of the Offences against the State Act form part of the response to that threat, and it is significant its provisions have been utilised in the context of an unlawful organisation outside the State. We continue to work closely with our EU and international partners in remaining vigilant against such threats.

The House will be aware that in February last year, I established an independent expert review group under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Michael Peart to examine all aspects of the Offences against the State Act, taking into account the current threat posed by domestic and international terrorism and organised crime, and the duty to deliver a fair and effective criminal justice system to ensure the protection of communities and the security of the State and Ireland's obligations in relation to constitutional, European Convention on Human Rights and international law. The chair of the review group has recently reported to me that the group has had significant engagement with relevant stakeholders, statutory agencies and civil society organisations. I expect to have the group's final report in the autumn of this year. I thank Mr. Justice Peart and the members of the review group for undertaking what is a very significant and complex task, and I look forward to engaging with any of the recommendations they might have for this important legislation. In the meantime, the report laid before this House notes the clear view of the Garda authorities that the Act continues to be one of the most important tools in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism. In the circumstances, I must conclude that these provisions continue to be required and that they should again be renewed for a further 12 months.

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, is also the subject of a motion before this House. It refers to a small number of serious, organised crime offences that are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes those offences scheduled offences for the purpose of Part V of the Offences against the State Act 1939, that is to say, trials for these offences are to be heard in the Special Criminal Court subject to the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to direct that the offences be tried in the ordinary courts. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trials by ruthless criminal gangs. It was enacted as a response to a number of difficulties where the justice system was considered to be under serious threat from organised crime. Organised crime gangs had shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. It was imperative that the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault launched upon it through intimidation and violence. That imperative remains.

The report on this section that I have laid before the House in accordance with section 8 covers the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022. It includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use over the past 12 months of the provisions in question and details of the particular offences in question. The report outlines that in the past year, 16 individuals have been convicted in the Special Criminal Court in respect of offences to which section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act applies. Of course, it is the case that the jury trial should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. However, we cannot ignore the threat posed to the criminal process by terrorist groups and organised criminal groups which seek to intimidate jurors or potential jurors. The Special Criminal Court continues to play a necessary and important role in the State's criminal justice architecture in dealing with terrorism and the most serious organised crime cases.

Every member of this House is aware of the lengths to which these criminal gangs are prepared to go to thwart the justice system and to maintain a climate of fear and intimidation in our communities. They have no regard for the damage their activities cause for families throughout the country. They have no regard for the rule of law and will stop at nothing in pursuit of their own criminal gain.

Supporting the great work of An Garda Síochána in tackling organised crime remains a priority for the Government. I assure the House the Government is fully committed to giving An Garda Síochána the necessary resources to continue the work of combating those involved in organised crime. As Minister for Justice I acknowledge that work. An Garda Síochána continues to make significant seizures of drugs and firearms, to bring organised criminals to justice and, importantly, to prevent further loss of life. The view of An Garda Síochána is set out clearly in the report, which is that the continued operation of this provision is still required. As Minister for Justice I must have full regard for the views of the Garda Commissioner. It is my view, therefore, that section 8 should continue in operation for a further 12 months.

As set out in the two reports I have laid before the House, it is clear, in the view of An Garda Síochána, that the provisions in the 1998 Act and the 2009 Act combined continue to be necessary and effective in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism and the fight against serious organised crime. On the basis of the information set out in the report and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House should approve the continued operation of these relevant provisions of the 1998 Act and the 2009 Act for a further 12 months commencing on 30 June.

Deputy Martin Kenny

There can be no doubt there is a significant problem with organised crime here in Ireland. Over the past 20 years, gangland feuds and other organised criminal activity have been the scourge of urban communities and have even reached into rural communities throughout the State. Only last week we saw an organised crime related shooting occur in broad daylight here in Dublin city, the third such attack on the same individual in a matter of months. As spokesperson on justice and with the support of my party colleagues, I have been steadfast in my approach towards ending organised crime.

As one of Sinn Féin's representatives on the justice committee I have sought to, and succeeded in, working collaboratively with the Minister, her Department officials, colleagues in these Houses and stakeholders. That spirit of collaboration was nowhere more evident than in the recent passage of the emergency legislation allowing Garda presenters to continue their important work in the courts system, at least for the time being.

Any proposal or policy brought forward by Sinn Féin on crime prevention has been advanced with the ultimate goal of strengthening the criminal justice system and the protection of the communities right across this State who are living with the scourge of unscrupulous criminal gangs. All of us in this Chamber are aware An Garda Síochána needs adequate resourcing as it stands on the front line to separate these dangerous individuals from the decent, hardworking public. We also know that sentencing and the courts will play a key role in that regard. Today the Minister presented the report that relates to this particular Act. It is worth noting the small number of times in the past 12 months the Offences against the State Act has been used. That is welcome. It is good that it has not been used as often as it has been in the past and I think we all recognise that. However, I am sure the Minister will agree reform of the current Special Criminal Court and the Offences against the State Act is also required.

I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the floor, welcomed the review of the Offences against the State Act now under way by Mr. Justice Michael Peart. This legislation is decades old and is an emergency provision. Emergency legislation by its very nature should only be enacted over a short period of time, yet this Act has been repeatedly passed by successive governments since the 1960s. Whatever argument may have existed in the last century to have such legislation as a consequence of the conflict in the North clearly no longer applies. It is not appropriate that emergency laws to deal with organised crime would need to be renewed on an annual basis as emergency legislation. Time and again we have seen the huge difficulties presented by this Act. I think of the Sallins train robbery case. Osgur Breatnach, Nicky Kelly, and other innocent men were charged and convicted using this Act. These men were subsequently exonerated. They fell foul of each and every failure within this legislation. The lives of these men and those of their families and loved ones were permanently damaged by the Act.

The opposition of Sinn Féin to the Offences against the State Act was never just for the sake of opposition. We have repeatedly echoed many of the issues raised by the UN Commission on Human Rights and Amnesty International. Among the many issues with the Act highlighted by those human rights organisations are the difficulties around the lack of judicial oversight and the overdependence on non-jury courts. It is completely out of step with judicial best practice that the prosecutor, in this case the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, would decide what cases would go before what is, in effect, a non-jury court by virtue of the category of the offence, and do so without any right to appeal that decision before a court. Each case should be decided on its merits and objective grounds must be given for the decision made on which court to hold a trial in in order to comply with basic international human rights standards.

When the review of the Offences against the State Act was announced I spoke with the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Flanagan. It was very much about recognising that in 2020, we were 20 years on from the last review, we had moved a long way on since the Good Friday Agreement and things had progressed. In fairness to the then Minister, he recognised there had been an election and that election had brought many new Teachtaí Dála into this Chamber and many of them from Sinn Féin, Independent groupings, the Green Party and the Social Democrats had difficulties with this legislation. The then Minister recognised that and in that spirit recognised there needed to be a new review and that is progressing.

A section of the Good Friday Agreement deals with the transition to a peaceful society, which we are well on the way to achieving. It specifically references the use of emergency legislation like this and the need to review it. The responsibility for the Government in this regard is quite clear. The agreement states:

The Irish Government will initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences Against the State Acts 1939-85 with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit.

In 2002 we had the Hederman review. While some of us felt its recommendations did not go far enough, practically none of its recommendations was ever implemented. The consequence of the Good Friday Agreement and the development of the peace process clearly mean the circumstances that first gave rise to the introduction of this emergency legislation do not still apply to Ireland. In this regard, in 2020 we sought and secured a new review which is ongoing. Sinn Féin also made a submission to the review group. Many Deputies in this House continually attack our stance on this Act. I would be curious to know how many of them took the time to make a submission to the review group.

Reform of this Act is clearly required. There are many reforms that successive Governments have had ample time to introduce, but have, for whatever reason, failed to prioritise. Recommendations on the operation of the Act from the Hederman review and the Law Reform Commission report on jury service have not been implemented by any Government. Successive governments have also failed to implement a modern, fit-for-purpose legislative framework that will provide legal certainty to ensure jurors are adequately protected and the criminal justice system operates within established human rights norms.

There has also been a lack of investment in resources to tackle modern organised crime and, in fact, there had been significant cuts to policing services over the years.

We hope the review group will make its recommendations before this winter. I am hopeful these recommendations will move towards the development of a 21st-century criminal justice infrastructure to tackle 21st-century crime. All people want is to have their communities safeguarded from criminality. One of the most fundamental ways to achieve this is by ensuring we have safe convictions, that are overseen by the judiciary and legal professionals and compliant with international legal norms. This year, we are disappointed the review has not made more progress. I have maintained contact with the secretariat of the review group, understand its work is continuing and that the final report will be concluded shortly. In that context, we will not oppose this legislation on the basis the report will be published and that reform of this law will be an obligation of the Minister to be delivered in the coming year.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

There is a certain feeling of déjà vu about this particular annual process when you could really print out last year's scripts and recycle them into the record of the House. That is never a good situation.

Let us start from first principles and ask what we have been asked to do today. We have been asked to continue in force certain provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. Those are the two motions before us. First, those enactments created new offences. Second, the provisions of the ordinary courts were deemed as inadequate to try these offences and they should therefore be tried before the Special Criminal Court. I think the approach of most of us to this now is these were needed provisions in their time. However, even though in the emergency it was inserted into the legislation that an annual renewal would be required, meaning that annually we can pull the plug on this, this has gone on for decades.

As Deputy Martin Kenny rightly pointed out, there have been reviews in the past of this and it is almost as if we can continue doing nothing because somebody somewhere is reviewing. It seems to me the consensus in the House, certainly last year, was if there is a compelling case for particular criminal acts to be treated in a particular way, that should be a permanent feature of our law, that we should have that law introduced here, debate it, take evidence on it and determine by the will of the Houses of the Oireachtas whether that should be part of our permanent law. Instead we do it annually, on an ad hoc basis and, as I described last year in some detail, because we can act according to the law - de réir an dlí - as opposed to setting out the criteria for determining these matters in the statute directly themselves.

That brings me back to the review. Mr. Justice Peart was asked to chair it. We were told when we were reviewing this 12 months ago the interim report was imminent. I think few of us debating last year believed we would be at this point 12 months on, in other words, that we would not have a set of proposals before us by now. We were led to believe the interim report was imminent but 12 months on, the specifics are not before us. Rather than motions for renewal, what most of us had expected would be debated at this stage were specific legal changes that would set aside emergency provisions for good and all and set in long-term permanent criminal justice legislation the matters that are determined should be a feature of our permanent law and setting out if there is a case to be made for the establishment of non-jury trials.

Such trials may be necessary due to intimidation and so on. Let us set that out in permanent law as well, rather than having a recurring motion before the House for debate on the pretext that, every so often, somebody somewhere will review it and that might impinge upon it. A majority of the House probably believes this matter should be continued but I think there that a clear majority of the House also believes this should be the last time this pro forma presentation is made to us in this way, with the simple expectation that the House will nod through these annual motions and, if you like, read the recurring annual script without amendment.

The criminal justice system is one of the most important bulwarks of our democracy and it is constantly changing. The threats to our well-being from the criminal community and subversives are constantly changing and evolving. We have to be as agile in our legal framework, consistent with our human rights and international treaty obligations. I hope the Minister in her concluding remarks will indicate this will be the last time these motions are presented and that, between now and next year, when this resolution will elapse, we will have robust new law debated.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Kathleen Funchion)

We now move back to the Government side. I call Deputy Cathal Crowe.

Deputy Cathal Crowe

I thank the Acting Chairman. I must not have kept a proper eye on the roster. I thought I had a few minutes left. I was still drafting important lines I wanted to include in my remarks.

This is important legislation. I take on board the point made by the previous speaker. It probably is a bit of a Groundhog Day when we have to revisit this every year. I hope that, this year, there will not be a walkout before the vote takes place. This is key legislation.

I represent Clare and live in the south of the county, only a few miles from Limerick city. I recall how gangland warfare ravaged Limerick city when I was in my late teens and early 20s. It was only the instruments that are provided for within this legislation that really took that to task. I recall a person I knew very well having a road traffic accident coming up to a roundabout in Limerick city. He or she would not even file an insurance claim because he or she was afraid of the individual who crashed into the car. That is the level of fear that was present. Kids had trouble going into school. People in every walk of life feared that if they took on certain individuals, the ramifications would be colossal. Some people, such as Roy Collins and others, paid the greatest price of all. Lives were lost in the feud and the actions that took place. This is important legislation that has brought about a feeling of safety and a sense that the Garda is in control. In this country, we have only one police force, thankfully, and only one Army. It is very important that when it comes to the safety and the policing of the State, one entity that has the power in that regard. Frustrating as it might be for the Houses of the Oireachtas to have to renew this legislation and roll it over year in, year out, it is important that is done. There should not be too much opposition to the motions. I hope there will be no walkout this year.

In the context of the justice brief, there was a report in the media at the beginning of the week that is of significant concern to us in County Clare. The county has the lowest number of Garda vehicles in the country. It is a rural county, yet along the spine of the county we have the M18 motorway and Shannon Airport. There is a lot going on in the county. All present have seen videos on TikTok, Twitter and Instagram showing cars speeding on motorways and gardaí struggling to keep up with them because their vehicles are too old. Not only have we in County Clare vehicles that cannot keep up with the pace, in some places we do not have vehicles at all. I know of a Garda station where a car occasionally has to be shared with counterparts over the border in Limerick city. That kind of practice cannot continue. If it is to truly get on top of crime in rural and urban settings, and also to properly police Shannon Airport, which is in our back yard, it is important that the Clare Garda division is appropriately resourced. Since the realigning of the Garda organisation, much of the command structure that governs County Clare and the other counties in north Munster comes from Cork. There is pressure among the higher echelons of An Garda Síochána to slim down the force to bring about efficiency. "Efficiency" seems to be the buzzword in almost all organisations these days. To the higher echelons, "efficiency" might mean a leaner organisation that functions better but, from a community point of view, it often means that Garda personnel are not available when they are needed. I am currently dealing with many issues in my constituency. There was a report on the front page of the Sunday World last week in respect of feuding factions, but there are also a lot of bogus tradesmen doing the rounds in the county. There are many fly-by criminals who shoot up and down the motorway. They are not domiciled in County Clare; they take off to other parts of the country. The exits and entrances to the motorway, however, make is very easy for them to hit our county, commit a crime and get out quickly. We are going to need a fleet of Garda cars but, moreover, we will need better resourcing into counties such as Clare.

The final issue I wish to raise is that of the suspended members of An Garda Síochána in the Limerick division. That division encompasses a significant area of County Clare, including my home patch which has a population of 12,000 people. Several people have now been suspended, some of them for more than two years. An investigation is under way. This all stems back to the squaring of road traffic offences. When an individual is pulled over by a Garda car for speeding, the Garda officer has the entitlement, dating back to their training and the century for which An Garda Síochána has been in existence, to exercise discretion. The person pulled over may be going to a maternity hospital or to visit a sick relative or rushing somewhere for important reasons. It might not be ideal but if the speeding is explainable and the Garda officer decides the reason for it is plausible and legitimate, he or she can decide to square the offence and the matter will go no further. That is how it is supposed to operate - policing by consent and gardaí having authority in their community but also the respect of their community. At the moment, however, it seems a sledgehammer approach is being taken. Anyone who exercised that power of discretion in Limerick in recent years has come under a net of suspicion.

Careers have been ruined by this. Eight members have been fully suspended - with pay, may I add. They are probably at home watching "Judge Judy" this afternoon when they could be out bringing real criminals before the courts system. They are at home, being paid, when they should be on the beat. They could, at least, be put on administrative duty but that is not what has been done. Rather, they are at home and being paid for it. They did not enter the force and train up in Templemore to sit in an armchair at home when they could be out providing active service to the country. Not only were eight people suspended, up to 100 people have been brought into a net of suspicion, with mobile phones and laptops having been confiscated and personal communications between Garda officers being under investigation. That has been crippling. I do not know the rights or wrongs of the situation because I am not the investigative body. The only thing on which I am repeatedly trying to shine a light is that the matter has been before the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation in recent years and it is moving very slowly, from what I can tell. It is not going anywhere significant.

I do not believe the Minister operationally has a say in this but it is her line Department. Commissioner Harris has to step up to the plate and ensure a determination is made. If people are guilty, that is fine; if they are not guilty, let them get back to work. The investigation must be moved on, however. In any other realm or walk of life, things would not take this long and people would not be strung out for this long. It has been devastating to the morale of the force. I am friends with several gardaí and there are others I know as acquaintances. Morale has never been lower. Yes, gardaí are getting new uniforms and there is policy after policy coming down from Garda headquarters in the Phoenix Park but, as a force, they feel operationally underwhelmed. Some members are miserable. This investigation and the net of suspicion hanging over people is very detrimental. Some of the gardaí tied up in that net of suspicion had only just come out of the Garda College at Templemore. One can imagine that when a Garda passes out in Templemore and takes part in the fabulous parade in the parade yard, his or her first hope is to don the stripes of An Garda Síochána, wear the blue shirt and get out on the beat. Many of them, however, were straight into an investigation. Their careers were stifled. They cannot move back to stations close to their homeplace. It has often been said that there is no smoke without fire. That might not be how the courts system operates but within An Garda Síochána a question mark hangs over these young men or women who have entered the force and it will linger until their names are cleared. For better or for worse, I ask the Minister to, please, through Commissioner Drew Harris, expedite and end this process and put these gardaí back on the street.

It is useful to quantify that. Eight gardaí in one district might not sound like a lot but I understand that currently more than 100 gardaí nationally are suspended with pay. That is not good enough for a force that is not massive to begin with. The Garda station in my locality has three gardaí, which means there are three times as many gardaí suspended in the division as there are stationed there. That quantifies how big the problem is and it acutely explains the need to expedite this matter. I thank the Acting Chairman for her forbearance.

Deputy Pa Daly

It is 20 years since the previous review of the Offences against the State Act and the special powers it sets out, some of which predate the Second World War. As several speakers have noted, an annual review is not satisfactory. Three years ago, we called for a review of the system, which was granted. We need 21st century laws to tackle 21st century criminals. That encompasses everything, including increased Garda visibility on the streets and more resources and protection for those who are giving evidence against dangerous gangs. The powers granted under the Act are a departure from historic common law norms but we must ensure the Garda and the courts have the powers they need to take on organised crime.

The former Minister, Deputy Flanagan, agreed to a review of the legislation and it is good news that the current Minister, Deputy McEntee, has established it. The purpose of the review is to take into account the current threat posed by terrorism. The Minister noted in her speech that an international terrorist threat is unlikely. The review seeks to deliver a criminal justice system that is both effective and fair. It will take into account our constitutional obligations and those arising out of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The chairman of the review group, Mr. Justice Peart, recently reported that the public consultation has concluded. I note the extremely low usage rate of the Offences against the State Act in the past year. There has been a total of some eight offences altogether this year, whereas, back in 2002, 115 cases were taken under section 9 alone.

It is simply not right, as noted in a court case last year, that a civil servant should have the power to refer cases unchallenged to the Special Criminal Court without any reason or explanation. In one instance, a prosecution was tried in the ordinary courts and, when a retrial occurred, it was dealt with in the Special Criminal Court. There have been a lot of difficulties with the court over the past year. In that particular case, I understand there was no evidence of any jury intimidation. However, the DPP was able to make the decision to have it prosecuted in the Special Criminal Court.

The review group is highly respected. I hope it will have brought forward proposals for improvement by this time next year and that the Government will then introduce legislation. We want to work with the Government to bring about necessary change and improvement. There is no doubt we can improve on what is there, which it is the job of legislators to do. I do not see how laws that were crafted nearly 100 years ago, in the 1930s, can possibly be fit for purpose in the 21st century. Considering the cyberattack on the HSE last year and the rise of international criminal groups, which have become more sophisticated as they have consolidated, it is obvious our laws need to be improved. We all want the same thing, which is to ensure we have safer, vibrant communities. Our job as legislators is to put the tools in the hands of the Garda and the courts to make that happen.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"— resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2022 and ending on 29th June, 2023; and

— in the absence of any specific information being presented which points to the inadequacy of the ordinary courts in the administration of justice in Ireland with specific regard to offences listed under sections 6 to 9 and 12 of that Act, and acknowledging the views of multiple national and international human rights agencies that have raised serious concerns regarding the operation of the Special Criminal Court, resolves to proactively and progressively implement societal and justice reform measures which, within a specified period of time being no later than 2025, ensure that section 14 of that Act should not continue in operation after that date."

Every year, this legislation is put before us and the debate seems to be become more perfunctory and sometimes politicised. We do not properly engage with the impact of the special powers set out in the legislation and the legal and human rights issues inherent within them. The juryless Special Criminal Court will continue to operate, with no regard for the vocal opposition from international human rights organisations. Deputy Howlin referred to a review that is imminent. I would have expected the review to have been completed this year, in which case we would be having a very different debate. I often think we need a thesaurus to guide us on the meaning of words such as "imminent". I seem to have a very different vision of what it means from what it apparently means to others, which is very frustrating.

The Special Criminal Court was an emergency measure that has been in place for more than 50 years. It was needed 50 years ago and has been needed since then, which I acknowledge. Unfortunately, there is an issue with gangland crime. However, the State needs to enact alternative provision for juries, as is done in other jurisdictions. We also need a proactive policing model. I recall people in Drogheda and Limerick saying the dogs in the street knew there were issues in those places. Those types of issues get to a point where they are out of control and then, all of a sudden, there is a crisis. The proactive policing model is essential if we are to deal with that. It is not just about looking at one element of our response; we need a multifaceted approach.

I question whether, if the Special Criminal Court were not in place, we would seek now to put it in place and what the circumstances would be that necessitated its establishment. That is a debate we may need to have when the review is completed. The sole basis for the establishment of the court was to deal with organised crime and paramilitary activity. That basis has been used to justify its continuing operation even though the circumstances, in some cases, have changed. We have not done what has been done in other jurisdictions, which is to consider alternatives such as anonymous juries. I do not accept that the level of organised crime here is more extreme than it is elsewhere. I acknowledge it is a serious problem and threat but I do not accept it is worse in this country than in other jurisdictions that can exist without a comparable court. We must ask how other jurisdictions deal with these issues and protect juries and witnesses. Clearly, they are able to do so. I tabled a parliamentary question some time ago about what is being put in place to make the courts system safe for juries and witnesses. The response did not fill me with confidence that there is a proactive approach in this regard. We need to look at that.

The Special Criminal Court has a range of special powers that would not be accepted in normal courts, including the use of belief evidence, negative inferences from silence and evidence being withheld from the accused and his or her defence. The DPP is not obliged to provide a reason for referring an individual to a court where his or her rights are in question. It is one thing to make an argument that the Special Criminal Court is necessary on the basis of jury intimidation, but on what possible basis is it legitimate to reduce the standard of evidence? We want secure convictions where convictions occur. There have been cases in the past, including the case that was referenced concerning the Sallins mail train robbery, where convictions were subsequently overturned. There was a reduced standard of evidence in that particular case. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, Amnesty International and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, have all stated that the Special Criminal Court denies individuals the right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The UN Human Rights Committee has identified the court as being in violation of Ireland's obligations under international human rights treaties, has expressed concern regarding the expansion of its remit and has called for its abolition. We need to make comparisons with what is being done in other jurisdictions.

I hope my amendment will be accepted. I hope we will have a very different debate next year. It is not acceptable that we go from year to year without dealing with this issue in a much more substantial way.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Although this annual debate can be repetitive, it is important. Unfortunately, it sometimes becomes completely focused on the Special Criminal Court. As Members will be aware, there is more to these resolutions than simply matters to do with that court.

Under the 1998 Act introduced in the aftermath of the horrific Omagh bombing, 12 new sections were introduced that were required to be renewed annually by the Houses of the Oireachtas. That 1998 legislation established five new offences. Those offences have been very effective in assisting the Garda in prosecuting terrorist offences.

Of course, we are not only debating and renewing the Offences against the State Act 1998. We are also renewing and extending the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. That established four new offences. It has been extremely effective in combating gangland violence. It has been used before the courts and many criminals have been convicted as a result of the operation of those provisions. My view is that the motion is required. I am happy that the Government and Fianna Fáil are supporting it. Regrettably, the Special Criminal Court and the extension of these offences are necessary.

When we look at the whole principle of the Special Criminal Court, which will be, I suppose, the dominant part of the debate when we come to the motions, people should take into account what is in our Constitution and in the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. Article 38 of the Constitution deals with trials for offences and it sets out the mechanism by which people are to be prosecuted in accordance with law. It sets out what the law is. It states first that for minor offences people can be prosecuted summarily. People are prosecuted every day of the week without a jury for minor offences. Then it refers to the fact that if people are working for the military, they will be subject to the military courts. That happens. Third, it states that where the "ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice" special courts can be established. That is what the Special Criminal Court is and I will return to this point presently. There is then the general clause, which is contained at the end of Article 38, which states that no one shall be tried for a criminal offence without a jury, save in accordance with what precedes it, referring to the three examples I have given.

The Special Criminal Court is, therefore, a court that is constitutionally provided for. It is set out in our Constitution that a special criminal court can be established when ordinary courts are ineffective to secure the effective administration of justice. Sometimes that is forgotten. Just in case people think there is something exceptional or lacking in the protection of human rights regarding the Irish Constitution, let us look at the ECHR. In Article 6, that convention sets out that everyone tried for a criminal offence deserves to be given a fair trial in accordance with law. Again, there is no mention of a jury in that article. Just so that people are aware, many countries in Europe do not have any juries when it comes to the trial of serious criminal offences.

I think the system we have is preferable. One of the good things we inherited from the British is a system of justice that provides for a jury. Let us recall, however, that what we have is a system of justice we inherited from the British. Other countries on the Continent do not have this type of system. They do not have juries of 12 men and women selected at random from the electoral register. From speaking to lawyers on the Continent, I know they sometimes look at the system of juries and say it is extraordinary that juries do not have to give reasons or an explanation as to why people are found to be guilty or not guilty. I know that may sound extraordinary to us, but we should be aware that there is nothing exceptional about serious criminal trials taking place in the absence of a jury. It happens in other countries throughout Europe.

I want to see juries used in Ireland as much as possible. I want to see trials for most serious criminal offences having the benefit of juries being attached to them. It provides a greater system of protection. Juries bring objectivity to the assessment of the guilt or innocence of an accused person.

We must then look to see what we have learned about the Special Criminal Court from history. I missed the earlier part of the debate, but I think someone must have referred to the Sallins robbery. That was an example of a miscarriage of justice by the Special Criminal Court, but it is the only one I can really think of. If we look at the legislation we are considering here from 1998 and 2009, I am unaware of any campaigns that exist that claim people convicted by the Special Criminal Court have been wrongly convicted. I am unaware of having any such miscarriages of justice that have taken place before the Special Criminal Court brought to my attention. I do not hear people advocating for such cases. People get acquitted by the Special Criminal Court.

Let us be clear about the reason we have the Special Criminal Court. It is to protect ordinary men and women from being exposed to intimidation and threats, which I believe would arise if jurors had to adjudicate on gangland criminal trials or criminal trials for terrorist offences. We have seen that happen in the past. Gangs in this country have murdered children and journalists. From recent trials, we also know they have intimidated witnesses. If people are going to try to intimidate somebody to nobble a trial, probably the easiest person to nobble or intimidate is a member of a jury. People talk about how we should try to have anonymous juries or juries that are protected but for a trial to be fair, it must be ensured that the jury is in the same room as the people giving evidence. The jury must also be in the same room as the judge to allow him or her to assess the jury members and ensure they are paying attention. Therefore, regarding all the examples given in the context of trying to protect the identity of jury members, it may be possible to shield them, as cases have happened where witnesses have been shielded from the public, so it might be possible to shield the jury members from view by other people in court, but then at 4 p.m. or 4.30 p.m., no matter where they are, the jury members have to go home. It is not that difficult to identify who the people are on a jury. If they are identified, it is an easy way of trying to ensure it will be possible for someone to engage in the ancient crime of embracery.

When we have these motions before us, we must also reflect on the fact that a review is coming up. I welcome that. Fundamentally, though, the people on that review panel will have to consider whether they are going to declare that we no longer need a Special Criminal Court. I would have thought it would be the preference of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, to ensure that juries are used in cases. That is what I think a prosecutor would want. I respect that there are certain cases, which the DPP probably understands intimately, where it would be dangerous to put jurors in charge of adjudicating on a particular criminal charge. The review panel should complete its work promptly and be clear in respect of the review. No matter what that review panel states, it cannot deviate from the fact that the Constitution states that special courts are permitted when the "ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice". Unfortunately, that situation still exists here and it is why I will be voting for the motions.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Just before Deputy Jim O'Callaghan leaves, he said that the only miscarriage of justice he was aware of in the Special Criminal Court is the Sallins case. A quick Google search on my phone presented a case from 2021 where a man spent 14 months in prison for IRA membership and the Special Criminal Court subsequently found that to be a miscarriage of justice. The point is that the majority of miscarriages of justice are never identified. It is the tip of the iceberg that we see. If we have circumstances where we have no jury, where people can be convicted based on the word of a senior Garda and on inferences and secret information contained in documents not disclosed to the public and where great power is given to the DPP to try people without a jury, then we are creating a situation with the potential for miscarriages of justice. I also do not agree with the idea that a jury must be in the same room as a judge. I do not see the logic of that. It is better to have a jury that is remotely located and with video access and so on, so they can see without being identified, rather than to have all the problems associated with having no jury at all.

In November, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, stated that a "Special Criminal Court presents an insuperable obstacle to the right to a fair trial". It further stated:

... the continuing existence of a special non-jury court in Ireland is an intolerable interference with constitutional fair trial rights. It cannot be justified on practical or legal grounds. As other legal systems have shown, any problems with jury or witness intimidation can be addressed through other means.

The UN Human Rights Committee, Amnesty International and Mary Robinson have made very similar points. These extraordinary powers allow people to be locked up without the right to a trial by jury, without actual evidence being presented against them and just on the opinion of a garda.

It is very disappointing that the Green Party, having gone into government, has now dropped its opposition to this legislation, previously held on civil liberty grounds. Similarly, Sinn Féin, in preparation for going into government and trying to indicate to the establishment that it will be a safe pair of hands, has also dropped its long-standing correct opposition to the Special Criminal Court. I understand that about one third of Sinn Féin party members voted against this decision at the party's Ard-Fheis. I hope its position will be overturned at the next Ard-Fheis. Unfortunately, it will make people who look to Sinn Féin for radical change question whether Sinn Féin in government would deliver on the radical change they are looking for when the party is so committed to demonstrating it can be a safe pair of hands for the establishment, even at the expense of completely undermining very basic civil liberties.

We are never given any proof that jury intimidation is a significant problem in our criminal justice system. As I mentioned, there are plenty of alternatives if it is a significant problem, but the evidence has never been presented to justify taking away such a basic civil liberty.

Deputy Mick Barry

I am opposed to extending the powers of the Offences against the State Act. I agree with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the Special Criminal Court should be abolished. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has stated:

There is no jury at the Special Criminal Court and it accepts secret evidence from gardaí. This is in violation of our right to a fair trial, our right to trial by jury and our right to equality before the law.

The Government likes to portray itself, as does the State, as modern, liberal, and democratic. However, here we have a major contradiction in that the State has a parallel legal system without the democratic norms one would expect.

This issue is a litmus test for Sinn Féin as it prepares for government. Sinn Féin portrays itself as defenders of the rights of the people. Does that party stand by principle or does it, like the Green Party before it, bow to establishment pressure on this issue and insist on allowing the maintenance of the status quo? Sinn Féin has abstained on this issue in recent years citing an independent review in the pipeline. However, the review is clearly headed towards maintaining the system, by and large. Deputies who abstain today will do so in the full knowledge that they are failing to challenge a system of non-jury courts and a parallel legal system with inferior rights.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Deputy James Browne)

I thank my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, on her statement on the renewal of the provisions in the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, and I add my full support to the motion.

We know the provisions in the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 were introduced as a response to the Omagh bombing in 1998. We will never forget this appalling and ruthless event, a bombing that resulted in the murder of 29 innocent victims and untold suffering for their families and loved ones. While the security situation has improved, according to a security assessment by An Garda Síochána, the threat of terrorist atrocities from dissident republican paramilitaries against our communities and against peace remains. It also indicates that these robust provisions continue to be needed. It is a sobering reminder to contemplate the nature of dissident republicans who, despite being rejected by the people of Ireland and after they committed atrocities such as the Omagh bombing, remain committed to violence. The hard work of An Garda Síochána to disrupt terrorist activities prevents dissident republicans from inflicting further misery and suffering on our island. Its work must be underpinned with appropriate legislative powers. For this reason, I fully support the renewal of the provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act.

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 provides for a trial in the Special Criminal Court for a small number of serious organised crime offences. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trial with ruthless criminal groups. In these most serious organised crime cases, as in terrorism cases, the Special Criminal Court has played, and continues to play, a key role. I am sure all of us in the Chamber know of the devastation that organised criminal gangs have brought to communities throughout the State, with drugs, violence, intimidation, and murder. Organised criminal gangs are ruthless and remorseless. Let us be in no doubt that they would exploit any weakness in the criminal justice system if given the opportunity. The ability to try them in the Special Criminal Court helps to protect the rule of law and the administration of justice. I support the Minister's renewal of the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act.

I also acknowledge the work of the independent review group, chaired by Mr. Justice Michael Peart, which is reviewing the Offences against the State Act. The detailed review of the Act is welcome and I await the review group's final report, which is expected later this year. By renewing these important provisions, the House is affirming the position that we will not tolerate the activities of terrorists and organised crime groups and we are committed to seeing them defeated.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the Offences against the State Act and the Criminal Justice Act. I also welcome that we have to renew these special powers at least every 12 months; it is a prudent and sensible way to do business.

We would all prefer if the Special Criminal Court did not exist and if there was no need for it. However, the court has served the State well since its establishment, particularly in the early years when everything hung in the balance. I note the findings of An Garda Síochána and its intelligence assessment of the threats posed by dissident republicans in the North as well as in this jurisdiction. I have taken on board its professional security assessment that the Special Criminal Court should continue for at least 12 months. I commend the Garda on the excellent work it is doing. The work gardaí do in preparation for these cases goes unseen. I urge the Government to continue to provide the Garda with the resources it needs to deal with the work at hand.

We are always mindful that the Special Criminal Court hands down severe and significant sentences for crimes committed. We should not lose sight of the fact that it is a good deterrent. It is the only court in this country that serious criminals respect and fear. That is very important from the perspective of deterrence and we should not lose sight of that.

Some Deputies mentioned the concerns of the human rights community, both globally and domestically, in particular the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the United Nations and Amnesty International. They are right to point to the imperfections in this court system. They are correct that it is not appropriate to have a non-jury trial with just three judges. That is not in the normal course of business for trying ordinary criminals. However, I note, as did Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, that the Constitution gives specific powers to this House to establish special courts where it deems necessary. Based on the security assessment of An Garda Síochána, I also deem it necessary under these circumstances.

I welcome the Minister's update on the ongoing review by Mr. Justice Peart, which is a good thing. We have been talking about this for the past 18 months so I welcome that he intends to submit the report in autumn of this year. I have two quick questions for the Minister. If she does not have the information to hand, we can follow up on the matter. Does the Minister expect to publish Mr. Justice Peart's report once it is submitted or will a number of months be required prior to publication? Will the report be published this side of Christmas or afterwards? Is the Minister aware of any other similar court in the European Union? Does any other European Union country have a special criminal court system? I appreciate that other European countries may not have the same indigenous terrorist threat but they face a greater international terrorist threat. It would be useful in this debate to know if another EU country has set a precedent in this regard.

In summary, I am happy to support the motion. I recognise the importance of maintaining these powers for at least another 12 months. I look forward to the publication of Mr. Justice Peart's report. Perhaps we will have a different discussion on the powers of the Special Criminal Court this time next year.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I doubt it.

Deputy Michael Collins

The Rural Independent Group supports the motion, as we have done on each previous occasion on which it has been before us. On the whole, the Special Criminal Court has been an effective tool against subversive elements and, in recent years, organised criminal gangs, and for that reason it is worth retaining. The case for its retention, however, is far from unanswerable. We need to be clear that the ultimate aim of the Oireachtas is for there to be a time when the shutters can be brought down on the Special Criminal Court. To believe that it should exist permanently would be to admit that jury courts are incapable of operating effectively and that would be completely wrong. We do not buy into the absolutist position of many in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, for example. Many will acknowledge that many in the Fianna Fáil Party have a more absolutist position in favour of the Special Criminal Court and seem to view its existence as some kind of essential for a society that values law and order, as if the court were a thin blue line standing between us and chaos and disorder. In their eyes, any criticism of the court's existence is seen as being somehow soft on crime, criminal gangs and subversive organisations, which is simply not the case. There are many legitimate criticisms to be made of the existence of special criminal courts. The right to trial by jury of one's peers has existed since ancient Greek and Roman times and should not lightly be cast aside without acknowledging just how serious a step that always is.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I am slightly perplexed that we are here having the same debate we have year in, year out. Reviews of the Special Criminal Court have been carried out. In 2002 the committee to review the Special Criminal Court, headed by former Supreme Court judge and former Attorney General, Mr. Justice Hederman, reported. The majority in that found that the Special Criminal Court violated the normal rules of evidence, in particular with the opinion evidence of a chief justice being effectively unchallengeable. The whole idea of courts is that everything is tested and tried and that nobody has a monopoly on wisdom and nobody, not even a chief superintendent, is absolutely correct. The biggest problem I have with the Special Criminal Court is the fact that a trial cannot be challenged and that the DPP just directs that a trial be held before the Special Criminal Court. That has been resoundingly criticised internationally. I note that Deputy Jim O'Callaghan said that many countries do not have trial by jury and that is indeed the case. Nevertheless, once decisions that affect somebody's rights are made, people can challenge them in almost every country in the world. In Ireland, however, people cannot challenge decisions of the DPP to direct that they be tried before the Special Criminal Court. That was criticised in 2000 by the UN Human Rights Committee, a committee that oversees criminal justice systems, some of which do not have trial by jury. That is the essential difference.

I was very surprised that Lisa Smith was tried in the Special Criminal Court. The idea that Islamic State could subvert a trial in Ireland I find either farcical or deeply worrying - take your pick. Neither is a vindication of the current system. Is Islamic State so prevalent in Ireland that the Garda cannot counter the threat it poses, or is it simply farcical to suggest that Islamic State could subvert a trial in this State? I think it is the latter. Of course, it is non-challengeable.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I am grateful for the opportunity yet again to contribute to and to oppose this motion. I wish to comment on some of what has been said by previous speakers, particularly the Fianna Fáil Members who outlined the crimes committed and the role of the Special Criminal Court and whether they would be happening. The fact is that the Special Criminal Court has been here for 50 years and these crimes are still ongoing so, obviously, the court is not a deterrent if that happens. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan said he was aware of only one miscarriage of justice. Deputy Paul Murphy outlined a further one and I will give Deputy O'Callaghan another: the case of my father. He was convicted in the Special Criminal Court and his conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal, on foot of which he was released. There are loads of instances and many people who have been convicted in the Special Criminal Court who should never have been convicted in the first place and who have gone through the benefit of getting a conviction overturned.

It is a farce that we are forced to debate and to extend these Acts year after year. It completely undermines the House and completely undermines our justice system to keep working off emergency legislation permanently. The continued operation of the Special Criminal Court has been widely condemned. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has recommended the abolition of the Special Criminal Court due to the significant human rights and equality concerns associated with it and the Offences against the State Act. The commission believes that the ordinary courts are adequate to secure the effective administration of justice. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties also outlined human rights issues as well as constitutional issues with the Offences against the State Act and the operation of the Special Criminal Court: "The right to trial by jury is ... [a] fundamental right of every accused person ... as guaranteed by Article 38.1 of the Constitution." The Special Criminal Court, however, operates without a jury and is instead composed solely of three judges. That is clearly unconstitutional and creates inequality before the law. I will go further than that because I know for a fact that lawyers do not actually bother putting the law to the court because they know that there is no point in doing so and that the court is set up only to guarantee convictions. That is the reality of the situation, no matter what Government members say or how they look at one another in the Chamber. Everyone should have the right to trial by jury. There is no reason people who are tried in the Special Criminal Court could not be convicted in ordinary courts.

The most recent report by the Minister for Justice states: "The primary security threat in the State remains the threat from republican paramilitary groups." It further states that these groups continue to focus their efforts primarily on targeting members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. Earlier this year, however, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland himself announced that the Northern Ireland-related terrorism threat level in the North had been lowered. Why, then, is it necessary to continue extending this legislation year after year?

There are many ways in which we could properly reform our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, in my time as a Deputy and a member of the justice committee, I have seen no real push for or commitment to the type of reform needed in this country. We need comprehensive reform of our justice system and court system.

We had a justice committee meeting on Monday on the communications (retention of data) (amendment) Bill, one aspect of which is the definition of security of the State. Interestingly, there is no actual explanation in the Bill as to what the security of the State is. The reason given for that was that, because it is in the Offences against the State Act and there is no explanation there, the Government will not put an explanation in the communications Bill. Therefore, the security of the State can mean whatever we want at the time, so anybody can be brought before the Special Criminal Court and be guaranteed conviction. That is the only reason it is there.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Kathleen Funchion)

I will allow Deputy Danny Healy-Rae in briefly because he narrowly missed his slot. I will give him just two minutes.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

Thank you, Chair. I am very grateful.

Regarding the Special Criminal Court, I would much prefer we had trial by jury but I will not be the one to compromise the Garda if it wants to bring to justice druglords and criminal gangs. If the only way to deal with them is the Special Criminal Court, so be it. They have to be dealt with because our towns and villages are ravaged by drugs. The usual story now is that someone will walk up to you, not knowing you at all, and ask you if you want a bit of stuff. That is what is going on in all our towns and villages, even in the most rural parts of Kerry. They must be rooted out and the issue must be dealt with because our youth are being destroyed.

I wish to raise another, more local issue, a new Circuit Court house for Tralee. We need to agree a site. Urgent discussions should take place now between all the interested parties: the Department of Justice, solicitors, businesspeople, members of the community and whoever else. There are different sites, including Ballymullen Barracks, that need to be considered. It must be ensured that this courthouse is included in the imminent investment programme for public buildings. Otherwise, another opportunity may not arise for years, which in effect would mean, as is happening at the moment, that the Circuit Court would be lost to Tralee forever and finish up in Limerick or elsewhere.

That is not good enough for the massive county of Kerry. We need our Circuit Court operating in a proper building with modern infrastructure and to ensure it is in place for all those who need to use it.

Another request has been asked of me and I will ask it very briefly. Two Kerrymen have died, one in Garda custody. One was from Fenit, Shane Lynch, who died in Limerick, and the other, whose name was John O’Driscoll, died in Wexford. This happened weeks ago and their families are asking for clarity as to what happened. I know an investigation is taking place and we all want fair play but these families just want clarification as to what happened to these two Kerrymen in other counties.

Minister for Justice (Deputy Helen McEntee)

I am grateful to the House for the contributions to this important motion. I thank all the Deputies, in particular those who support this motion.

As I said at the outset, the threat from terrorist activity remains, particularly from the dissident paramilitary groups, which warrants the continuation in force of the provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. I accept it is emergency legislation and is only in place as long as it is needed. As Deputies will have seen from both reports, this is still needed. It is significant to note that for the first time this provision has also been utilised in the context of an unlawful organisation outside of the State. We are not immune from that threat. While we do not have the same kind of risk as other countries, we are certainly not immune from that threat.

Likewise, the renewal of section 8 of the 2009 Act is an important contribution to the overall framework of measures aimed at tackling organised crime. Every Deputy in this House knows the appalling damage that is caused by organised crime, especially those involved in the drugs trade, to individuals, families and communities. We have invested more funding than ever before in An Garda Síochána, with more than €2 billion of a budget, much of which is involved in targeting criminals and organised crime. Garda visibility and resources can be increased but that will not deal with the intimidation and threats many jurors have faced in the past. I do not believe any of us would like to be, or like our family members to be, in that position. Retaining these measures in respect of the most serious crimes associated with terrorism and organised crime ensures justice can be served and is free from any attempts to thwart the criminal justice process.

Deputy Berry has asked if there are other jurisdictions where there are non-jury courts. There are many other jurisdictions where there are non-jury courts. In those instances, if someone is being tried, they have a right to appeal once they have gone through that process. It is the same here. That is simply all that I was saying.

If we look at all of this and at the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, it has been an absolutely vital component in our response to an anti-democratic and criminal force that has sought to undermine the integrity of State through violence and intimidation. That is what this is about. I appreciate that renewing this yearly is not ideal but this is emergency legislation. It is still needed and that is very clear from the reports we have set out. I accept a review is necessary at this stage after 20 years, and I have given a very clear commitment to make sure the recommendations in that review will be considered by me and by my team, and I will debate it with Members in this House once that happens.

Amendment put.

Question put.

Deputy Mick Barry

Vótáil.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Kathleen Funchion)

The vote is postponed until this evening's voting block.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Jun 2022

Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motions

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 2022