Vol. 404 No. 6
22 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. Brooke in relation to extradition; and if, following this meeting, he intends amending the Extradition Act, 1987.
60 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice if, in the light of the latest High Court decision, he will outline his views on whether the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987 needs urgent amendment.
I propose to take Priority Question No. 22 and Question No. 60 together. I presume that Deputy Barrett's question refers to the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference held in Dublin on Thursday last and to the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987.
The Deputy should be aware that proceedings of the Anglo-Irish Conference are confidential and, in accordance with established practice, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them beyond referring him to the joint statement issued after conference meetings. A copy of the joint statement issued after last Thursday's conference meeting has been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
As to the question of amending legislation, I remain of the view that such a course should not be followed unless and until the need for amendment is established and would certainly be premature until the existing legislation in this area — the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987 — has been further tested before the courts.
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Brooke did make a public statement saying he intended raising this matter with the Minister for Justice? In view of that it is only right and proper that the public should be informed as to what steps the Minister intends taking.
If the Minister needs any evidence as to why our extradition laws need to be amended he should refer to the case heard in the High Court last Friday week where two individuals were returned to Northern Ireland to face charges on the use of machine guns and where one of the people who was in possession of these arms was set free. Does the Minister not agree that it makes an absolute joke of our extradition laws if people who store explosives, ammunition and weapons in Northern Ireland can, as fugitives, walk free because the offences they commit are regarded as political offences on this part of the island? Does he not further agree that there is ample evidence to support the need for us to amend our existing laws? We will become a laughing stock if terrorists who store ammunition and weapons with intent to use them——
The Deputy is embarking on a speech.
——can walk free from our courts. Finally, is the Minister aware that the Taoiseach gave a commitment that if there was a need to amend our extradition laws he would do so without delay. Is the Minister also aware——
Please, Deputy Barrett, this is too much in respect of priority questions.
——that his predecessor——
The Deputy will now desist.
——said, when introducing legislation in this House, that he would stand over——
I am calling the Minister to reply.
As I have already indicated in my reply, I would regard amending legislation at this stage as premature. The 1987 Act has as yet only been judicially considered by the High Court in the course of two separate judgments, the judgment delivered by the President of the High Court in the Ellis case on 30 July 1990 and the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Lynch in the McGee, McKee and Sloan cases on 25 January this year. The Act has yet to be argued before or considered by the Supreme Court. In those circumstances the Deputy must accept that the Act has in no sense been considered fully by the courts. Can he, therefore, not accept that it would be premature to consider amending the Act now before it has been fully tested?
I would also remind the Deputy that the outcome of the proceedings in which the 1987 Act has been considered to date by the High Court is that extradition orders have been confirmed in three out of four cases. I would also remind the Deputy that the 1987 Act meets fully the obligations we assumed when we signed the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and accords fully with international norms in the limitations it places on the political offence exception for extradition purposes. Indeed, Ireland is only one of eight countries to have acceded to the convention without entering a reservation. The remaining 14 countries have entered reservations in relation to political offences.
I want to assure the Deputy that we want to see this matter thoroughly clarified by the courts. It would be premature to take any further action pending such clarification. The Deputy asked if this matter was raised last Thursday and included in the joint statement issued after the meeting.
Question No. 23.
May I ask a final supplementary question?
It must be very brief.
I want to ask the Minister for Justice a straight question. Does he think that someone who is charged with storing explosives and weapons and who escapes across the Border should be able to walk free on this part of the island as a result of a decision of the High Court which regards such an offence as a political offence?
Question No. 23, please.
I want to know the answer — yes or no?
I have called Question No. 23 in the name of Deputy Pat McCartan.
