Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the renewal of certain sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009.

I agree with the previous speaker that the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 should be repealed in its entirety. I do not believe there is any room for special legislation such as this to be used in a democratic society that respects citizens' human rights, civil liberties and due process.

Under the provisions of the Offences against the State Act, the Special Criminal Court is being used. That court was established to guarantee convictions. The only reason it was set up was to ensure that those brought before it would be convicted and sent to gaol for long terms. Such mechanisms undermine the human rights and civil liberties of all citizens of the State. They show that the State is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to deal with people it views as being contrary to its own ethos. Such mechanisms, however, undermine citizens' rights across the country.

The operation of the Offences against the State Act goes the same way. In his dissenting view on the review of the terrorism Acts, Professor Dermot Walsh said there was a tendency for these provisions to be used by the State for ulterior motives. There has been, and continues to be, a tendency to broaden out the use of these measures. The report laid before the Houses on the Offences against the State Act noted that last year 331 people were arrested under section 30 of the Act. Do we know who those 331 people were? For what reasons was the Act used? For example, was section 30 used against people associated with protesting against the Corrib gas installation?

In her own contribution, the Minister said is was used regularly by the Garda Síochána. When such provisions and measures are in place, however, the tendency is to over use them because they are easy and convenient. They will be used against people who are not involved in so-called terrorism activity or in trying to subvert the State, but who may use the democratic process to oppose and protest against actions of the State or what private companies are doing. Using such legislative measures widely undermines everybody's civil rights and civil liberties.

The extension of the detention period to 72 hours under the Act shows that it will be used to intimidate people into making confessions. Studies have shown that most confessions take place within the first 12 hours of detention, so extending the period to 72 hours does not serve any purpose other than restricting people's legitimate protests.

The Garda Síochána already has adequate powers under other provisions of the criminal justice legislation to deal with many offences included in the Offences against the State Act. The problem with those powers is that they are subject to too much overview. Nonetheless, a lot of regulation is necessary to protect civil rights.

I think this motion should be opposed. The Offences against the State Act should be repealed in its entirety. We should demonstrate to citizens that the State respects human rights and civil liberties, and will work within due process to ensure that people's rights are maintained. By thus respecting citizens, the State could show that there is no need for subversion or for so-called terrorist organisations to try to overthrow the State.

The same reasoning applies to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, including the use of the Special Criminal Court to try cases. The court was established to secure convictions, which is why it is still being used. While many crimes by organised criminals are abhorrent to everyone - we have seen evidence of that in the past week - I would question how useful the Special Criminal Court has been. We certainly have not seen any dilution of the activities of organised criminal gangs, so we need to find other ways of dealing with these issues. Those provisions are already within the criminal justice Acts.

See this speech in context