Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I differ in my view from Sinn Féin on the matter of the Special Criminal Court. I see a role for that court in certain circumstances. The Minister states he is sending out a signal but I regret that he is doing nothing more and that this is a signal without substance. This amounts to announcing a declaration that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in the State, a savage indictment of the past 12 years of Government. It is an indication by the Minister that he and his predecessors have failed to deal with the problems in the criminal justice system.

As other Deputies have stated, the most important aspect of any Administration is the provision of proper enforcement proceedings with any legislation as well as resources. It is easier to legislate than to provide resources and it seems we are doing nothing more than legislating because of the great imposition on Garda frontline activity and the failure to properly police our ports and to ensure we deal with the menace of gangland and drugs in the manner in which we should. Fine Gael will support the legislation but with reservations related to the manner in which we have been debarred from debating the important issues.

The Constitution enshrines the right to a trial by jury. The Minister mentioned the Gilligan case but one could also refer to the Kavanagh case and the criticism of the use of the Special Criminal Court both nationally and internationally. While I support the Special Criminal Court it is important that it is used on a case-by-case basis. That would be a good deal more preferable than introducing a statutory provision to the effect that cases would go to the Special Criminal Court as a matter of course, unless the Director of Public Prosecutions advises otherwise. I am unsure if such a blanket referral would withstand a constitutional challenge and I call on the Minister to inform the House of the advice he has received from the Attorney General in that regard.

The Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury and goes even further than some of the international conventions to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred. If we are to ensure this legislation is as effective as the Minister maintains, then any decision should be on a case-by-case basis and it should be left to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide.

I also believe we have not dealt adequately with alternatives. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments about the letter to The Irish Times, the parliamentary question or the manner in which the authorities never separate the matter of intimidation of jurors from the intimidation of witnesses, for reasons best known to themselves. I am unsure if we have dealt with the alternatives such as the options of screening or anonymous juries. Some years ago a trial related to events in Limerick was held in Dublin which did not present any great difficulties. The locality could be different and perhaps juries could be brought in from other parts of the country which may not prove too difficult in the circumstances. The Minister is doing no more than sending out a signal which could perhaps have the opposite effect to his intention.

The legislation may well be unworkable. An important aspect of this debate is to ensure it is robust and that it could withstand a constitutional challenge. That is the reason some months ago in this House the Taoiseach indicated that important sections of the 2007 Act were unworkable because they were constitutionally unsound. We do not appear to be learning in any way from the mistakes of the past.

See this speech in context