Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am standing here again this year to oppose the rubber-stamping of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 in our criminal code. This has become a moot point every year, but I think it should still be opposed because we cannot simply give a carte blancheto the Government on this. The right to silence and the inference included in that right being available to all citizens is and should continue to be a cornerstone of our justice system.

Putting forward these motions has assumed de facto permanency and the continuation of these powers is just a routine part of the criminal justice architecture in our State. It has been rightly condemned by human rights groups throughout the world because the undermining of civil liberties affects all our citizens irrespective of whether they will ever be before the courts. It is wrong to give the Government the impression that it can carry out these things whenever it deems fit.

There are reports laid in the Oireachtas Library on which these motions are supposed to be based, but I believe the reports are not fit for purpose. They give the bare minimum of information that the Department of Justice probably deems is required to get these motions through. It is a good job that the reports are not up to much because they only appeared in the Oireachtas Library on Monday and if they required proper or full study it would probably not be possible.

At the very least we need a report that gives a breakdown of why we need this law, what it contributes to our system and what are the possible alternative measures that could be carried out to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system in a way that protects our citizens and preserves human rights. Previous speakers have outlined some of those already. It would do far more service to the country to consider those and put in place a system to ensure that those rights can be dealt with and people can be treated properly.

Over the years the Special Criminal Court has become somewhere the State can guarantee a conviction regardless of the soundness of the evidence presented. Solicitors will not bother to put forward a defence or challenge evidence because they know that the outcome will be a conviction anyway. One could argue that is not the fault of the court or the Government, but it is symptomatic of the way that the court is set up and required to run.

Maybe the intention is that no one will challenge the evidence or lack of evidence. This undermines our entire justice system and the presumption that justice can be achieved in the State as things stand. It means that the lawyers who are supposed to operate the criminal justice system do not bother because they know that regardless of whether they put forward a counterargument, the court will guarantee conviction because that is what it is meant to do. The State is quite happy with that and we, as legislators, are also supposed to be quite happy with that. We are supposed to rubber-stamp this every year to allow this to happen. That is wrong and it undermines everybody in the State. It also undermines this House that we allow this system to continue.

I do not believe that the people who are tried in the Special Criminal Court could not be convicted in the ordinary courts. I believe they could. It would be far better for our system and for our democracy to do that. It would be far better all round. Those people would still be in jail and would still be convicted. That is the reality of the situation. The difference is that it is a bit harder and that the State would need to work a bit better. What we are doing with this system is getting it over and making it easier for the State to do what it is doing.

I am opposed to the blanket endorsement of these provisions and believe that it contributes to the undermining of all our rights. That is what this House must stand up for.

See this speech in context