Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

This amendment gives rise to considerable concerns, already voiced on the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform justifies the establishment of a second Special Criminal Court on the basis that justice delayed is justice denied. Previous rulings on granting bail could be overturned if there was an inordinate delay in the provision of justice and a trial date being set in the Special Criminal Court. Will the Minister provide the House with statistics on how the Special Criminal Court has been used over recent years? Are there offences before the court which have nothing to do with emergencies or the scheduled offences in the Offences Against the State Act? Non-scheduled offences and those normally dealt with in the ordinary courts are being lumped into the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court. This information is required when examining whether the Special Criminal Court is operating in its remit or whether it has been unduly expanded to include a plethora of other offences.

Once the backlog of cases has been dealt with, will the Minister abolish the second Special Criminal Court? Otherwise there will be a recurring backlog because of the manner in which the legislation is applied and the court is operated. Non-scheduled offences can become the major part of the legislation. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe stated there was much subversive activity. It is ironic there is more subversive activity now than before the Good Friday Agreement. However, much of the subversive activity being dealt with by the courts and the Garda falls under the proceeds of crime legislation and the Criminal Assets Bureau. While some argue that such activity is another mechanism of usurping the authority of the State, it is covered by special powers legislation with accompanying investigative bodies. We must be careful to separate those two types of legislation.

The Good Friday Agreement contains an obligation for the review of all special powers legislation with a view to dismantling it. The British authorities abolished the Diplock courts under the Agreement. However, on our part there has been no quid pro quo.

This morning the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights heard representations from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Amnesty International on the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. Amnesty International is concerned with the bevy of provisions contained in this Bill that could be in breach of international requirements on human rights. If we introduce special powers legislation, safeguards must be put in place. There is no proposal in this legislation that the proposed second Special Criminal Court will be reviewed or abolished. When the Offences Against the State Act was amended after the 1998 Omagh bombing to provide extra powers for detention, a specific caveat was included that the provision was to be reviewed on an annual basis. However, what mechanisms will inform us that this second Special Criminal Court may become unnecessary? While the Minister claims he is establishing it to deal with the backlog of cases, no other reason has been given. More reasons and statistics must be given and a review mechanism must be put in place. Otherwise, we are being unfair and not entirely responsible in accepting this Bill.

On constituting a terrorist offence, this Bill includes everything, down to the kitchen sink. Schedule 2 would make one's hair turn grey, if it was not already so. Offences that may be considered terrorist and terrorist-linked activities include common law offences such as rape, manslaughter, assault causing harm, assault causing serious harm, poisoning and endangerment. Endangering traffic is also considered a terrorist offence. Malicious damage to railways, obstructing engines or carriages on railways are all considered terrorist offences. Our wonderful air force will be protected by the Schedule.

See this speech in context