Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

The motion seeks approval for the continuance in operation of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 which would otherwise cease to be in operation after 30 June next. This legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the atrocity in Omagh in August 1998. This was a dreadful act which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people and injured over 200 others.

The callous attack at Omagh was designed to undermine the fledgling peace process and, thankfully, it failed in that aim. Ten years later we can reflect on the great strides made in normalising politics in Northern Ireland, the successful partnership in the devolved Executive and an ever closer North-South relationship.

Given the very exceptional circumstances which surrounded the enactment of the 1998 Act, it was decided that certain sections should be revisited annually by the Oireachtas. The aim is to allow this House and the Seanad to decide if the current circumstances justify the continuation in operation of those provisions. Accordingly, the House must decide if the situation that exists still warrants the continued operation of these provisions for a further period not exceeding 12 months. For my part, I have no doubt that they do.

To support the consideration by Deputies of the necessity for the renewal of the relevant sections of the Act, I am required to lay a report on their operation before both Houses prior to the resolution being moved. This report covers the period since the last such report was prepared in April 2007 and it was laid before the House on 13 June 2008.

The clear lesson to be drawn from the report is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act have been of significant value to the Garda in tackling the threat from terrorism. The inevitable conclusion is that they should remain in operation for a further 12 months. The Garda authorities consider that the Act continues to be a vital piece of legislative equipment in the continuing fight against terrorism.

Members will be aware that, although progress has been made within Northern Ireland and the Provisional IRA is committed to following the political path, there remains a real and ongoing threat from a variety of dissident republican groups. We should not be complacent or presume that the success of the peace process has somehow removed this threat. The House will scarcely need reminding of recent attempts to kill members of the PSNI — two shootings of off-duty officers in November last year and a further car-bomb attack in Tyrone only last month.

The 18th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, IMC, published on 1 May 2008, makes it clear that the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the group styling itself Óglaigh na hÉireann and the INLA all remain committed to violent paramilitary action in pursuit of their ends. These groups continue to seek to acquire and manufacture weapons, to plant explosive devices and to target members of the security forces.

Should we assume these groups are involved in some noble cause for Irish freedom, we must not forget the terrible acts they have perpetrated, including Omagh, which gave rise to the necessity for this legislation. We cannot not forget either the clear evidence, as recorded by the IMC, of the ongoing involvement of these organisations in other serious criminal activities, including extortion, drug-dealing and brothel-keeping. These criminal activities are carried out as much for personal gain and to support particular individual lifestyles. There is also speculation that the terrorist expertise of these groups has in some cases been sought by organised criminal gangs. The Garda Síochána will continue actively to counter such attempts.

These anti-democratic organisations remain active and determined in their opposition to peace and the rule of law. We should not, therefore, underestimate the importance of these legislative provisions in thwarting their activities.

Although the motion is concerned with provisions aimed at the threat posed by domestic terrorism, the wider international, threat cannot be ignored. The extent of the terrorist threat in the European Union varies greatly from one member state to another. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to imagine that Ireland is completely immune to these new forms of terrorism. Ireland cannot be complacent in response to them. There is also the danger of domestic groups forging international links. We should be alert to these dangers and act, in particular, with our EU counterparts to defeat them.

The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 is aimed specifically at the international threat. It enables the application of the Offences against the State Acts, including the provisions which are under consideration today, against the activities of international terrorist groups and individuals.

The report I laid before the House deals with the operation of the relevant sections since April 2007. Section 2 was used on 80 occasions. It provides that where, in any proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused failed to answer or gave false or misleading answers to any question, the court may draw such inferences as appear proper. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure; there must be some other evidence which points towards a person's guilt.

Section 3 was used on 12 occasions. It provides that, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his behalf, unless the court permits otherwise.

Section 4 was used on 13 occasions. This section amends section 3 of the Offences against the State Act 1972 in such a way as to expand the definition of "conduct" that can be considered as evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation. Specifically, "conduct" can include matters such as "movements, actions, activities, or associations on the part of the accused". This change simply aligns the definition of conduct in the 1972 Act with the reference to movements, actions, activities or associations used in section 2 of the 1998 Act.

Section 5 was used on 34 occasions. It provides for the drawing of adverse inferences in certain circumstances in the prosecution of a person for any offence under the Offences against the State Acts, any offence scheduled under the Acts, and any offence arising out of the same set of facts as such an offence, provided that the offence carries a penalty of five years' imprisonment or more. The effect is to allow a court to draw inferences where the accused relies on a fact in his defence that he could reasonably have been expected to mention during questioning or on being charged but did not do so. As with section 2, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.

Section 7 was used on 16 occasions. This section makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences.

Section 8 was used on 14 occasions. This section makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences.

Section 9 was used on 127 occasions. This section makes it an offence to withhold information which a person believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another person of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person for such an offence.

Section 10 was used on 12 occasions. This section extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express authorisation of a judge of the District Court. In this regard, the judge must be satisfied, on the application of a Garda officer not below the rank of superintendent, that the further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. The person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his behalf. In the reporting period in question, an extension was applied for in 12 cases; two were granted, charges resulted and convictions resulted in two cases.

Section 11 was used on 32 occasions. This section allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he was previously detained under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised in circumstances where the judge is satisfied, on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána, that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that person's suspected participation in the offence.

Section 14 is a procedural section which makes the offences created under sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and section 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences are liable to arrest under section 30 of the 1939 Act. The sum total of the uses of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and section 12 was 157.

I will now deal with those sections of the 1998 Act which were not used in the period under report, namely, sections 6, 12 and 17. Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act 1939.

Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994, providing for the forfeiture of property. Essentially, the 1994 provision empowers a court, at its discretion, whenever any person is convicted of an offence under that Act, to order the forfeiture of any property in the possession of that person which was used, or intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of the offence. The effect of section 17 is, in the case of a person convicted of specified offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, to require the court to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order.

Although these sections were not used in the period under report, the House will agree that their continued availability is essential to an effective response to the threat from terrorist groups. The information on the use made of the provisions of the 1998 Act is based on data received from the Garda authorities and is contained in the report on the Act laid before this House.

In conclusion, on the basis of the information set out in the report, it is clear that the 1988 Act continues to be an important element of the Garda response to the threat still posed by terrorist groups here. From the advice given by the Garda Síochána on the evident ongoing threat from terrorist groups, particularly the dissident republican groups, I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for further 12 months. I commend the resolution to the House.

See this speech in context