Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

It is incredible that after less than a two-hour debate this House will pass, by a big majority - a bigger majority, unfortunately, than in recent years - these massive restrictions on civil liberties and democratic rights. Those Deputies will do so against the advice of the UN Human Rights Committee, against the position of Amnesty International and the Irish Council on Civil Liberties and in most cases, without even reference to the real concerns about the restrictions on civil liberties contained within the continuation of this legislation.

The right to have a trial by jury is an essential democratic right. Mary Robinson made the point in 1985 that "To charge persons in the Special Criminal Court that are charged with purely criminal offences is to abolish trial by jury by the back door." This is an affront to basic civil liberties and human rights.

The UN Human Rights Council argued against the court in 1993, stating it was not justified. In 2000, the council stated that steps should be taken to end the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court. Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have also made arguments that continue to hold weight today.

Deputy Bríd Smith referred to the fact that the subjective opinion of a chief superintendent of the Garda is treated as evidence in and of itself. That is an affront to civil liberties. It is not as if we do not have evidence in the history of this country of misbehaviour of gardaí, including in court cases. We saw that the disclosures tribunal found a campaign of calumny against former Garda Sergeant Maurice McCabe. We witnessed the Morris tribunal. I have personal, albeit much more minor, experience of testimony given by gardaí at trial. One does not even have a right to remain silent at the Special Criminal Court. It is not credible in the slightest to claim that the trials before that court are fair. It is the equivalent of internment without trial.

As is usually the case with repressive legislation, whether the Patriot Act in the USA or other examples from around the world, it starts in emergencies. Restrictions on civil liberties are pushed through in the context of a perceived or actual emergency. In the case of the Special Criminal Court, it was supposedly to deal with the threat of the Provisional IRA. The emergency, necessity and reasons that are given to justify the legislation then change, the repression stays on the Statute Book and is able to be used by the State.

It is unfortunate that Sinn Féin will vote for Diplock courts. This is an historic moment and the price of entry that those on the other side of the Chamber charge to be considered for coalition. That is what the general election was about. The Green Party has similarly never voted for this legislation before but will do so now. It is a big mistake to concede to this campaign of pressure. I accept that pressure has been put on but it is a mistake to yield to it. If one concedes to this attack on civil liberties because it comes with a report, one will be under massive pressure to concede again in a year's time. It is a basic principle by which people should stand. People have the right to a trial by jury and it should not be restricted.

The central justification for this legislation is jury intimidation. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has given a number of different examples of how this issue, to the extent it is a real issue, can be dealt with. Examples include anonymous juries, screening juries from public view, special protection for juries during trials and video links for juries at different locations. Some of those are not new ideas in Irish law. The Juries Act 1929, which was not commenced and has now been repealed, had some of these protections and others. The point has also been made that witnesses must give evidence during trials in the Special Criminal Court and are therefore also possible targets of intimidation. The court fails even in that regard.

The Special Criminal Court was never needed. We should not accept these restrictions of civil liberties now or in the future. This House cannot claim ignorance of the undemocratic and authoritarian nature of this legislation or pretend that alternatives to it do not exist. There is no excuse or justification to vote for the continuation of this restriction on civil liberties.

See this speech in context