Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

- resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2021 and ending on 29th June, 2022; and

- in the absence of any specific information being presented which points to the inadequacy of the ordinary courts in the administration of justice in Ireland with specific regard to offences listed under sections 6 to 9 and 12 of that Act, and acknowledging the views of multiple national and international human rights agencies that have raised serious concerns regarding the operation of the Special Criminal Court, resolves to proactively and progressively implement societal and justice reform measures which, within a specified period of time being no later than 2025, ensure that section 14 of that Act should not continue in operation after that date.

Every year, this legislation is put before us and, every year, the debate seems to be more and more perfunctory. A juryless court will once again continue with no regard to the constant and vocal opposition from international human rights organisations. Last year, the House was promised a review and, last month, we were promised an interim report on the said review. Yet, despite a hard legislative deadline, of which the Minister is well aware, we are once again asked to renew this legislation without any information as to why the ordinary courts are insufficient.

I want to highlight the second part of our amendment. The Special Criminal Court is an emergency measure which has now been in place for 49 years. It was needed 49 years ago, it has been needed and, I acknowledge, it is unfortunately still needed, particularly for issues like gangland crime, as the State has yet to enact alternative protections for juries. However, to accept the constant continuation of this measure is to accept that, as a society, we will always be in such a position and that there are things that are so bad, from a crime and justice perspective, that we cannot do away with this court, to accept that we are unique in our challenges with gangland crime and dissident groups and to accept the UN Commission on Human Rights does not understand. I find it difficult to accept that. We are better than that and we should strive to be better than that.

The Special Criminal Court has a range of special powers which would not be accepted in the normal courts, including belief evidence, negative inference from silence and evidence being withheld from the accused and their defences. It is one thing to make the argument that the Special Criminal Court is necessary on the basis of jury intimidation but on what possible basis is it legitimate to reduce the standard of evidence? The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission have all been critical of those procedures. All have stated that the Special Criminal Court denies individuals the right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly identified the Special Criminal Court as a violation of Ireland's legal obligations under the international human rights treaties, has expressed concern on the expansion of its remit and has called for its abolition. Currently, the DPP is not obliged to provide a reason for referring an individual to the court where their human rights are in question.

We have a major problem with gangland crime, which I completely acknowledge. It is corrosive in the communities where it is evident but it is not unique to Ireland. The challenge this Government should be undertaking is to equip our ordinary courts to administer transparent justice safely and securely to all involved. There are international examples to draw on to ensure juries are protected and free of intimidation, such as anonymous juries, yet there seems to be no desire to even consider these options. Our amendment seeks to put a timeframe in place to deal with this issue because, if we do not focus attention, we will be here in five years' time or possibly even ten years' time, talking about the same issues, voting on the same legislation and being challenged by the same human rights organisations, for which most of us have a great deal of respect.

See this speech in context