Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There can be no doubt there is a significant problem with organised crime here in Ireland. Over the past 20 years, gangland feuds and other organised criminal activity have been the scourge of urban communities and have even reached into rural communities throughout the State. Only last week we saw an organised crime related shooting occur in broad daylight here in Dublin city, the third such attack on the same individual in a matter of months. As spokesperson on justice and with the support of my party colleagues, I have been steadfast in my approach towards ending organised crime.

As one of Sinn Féin's representatives on the justice committee I have sought to, and succeeded in, working collaboratively with the Minister, her Department officials, colleagues in these Houses and stakeholders. That spirit of collaboration was nowhere more evident than in the recent passage of the emergency legislation allowing Garda presenters to continue their important work in the courts system, at least for the time being.

Any proposal or policy brought forward by Sinn Féin on crime prevention has been advanced with the ultimate goal of strengthening the criminal justice system and the protection of the communities right across this State who are living with the scourge of unscrupulous criminal gangs. All of us in this Chamber are aware An Garda Síochána needs adequate resourcing as it stands on the front line to separate these dangerous individuals from the decent, hardworking public. We also know that sentencing and the courts will play a key role in that regard. Today the Minister presented the report that relates to this particular Act. It is worth noting the small number of times in the past 12 months the Offences against the State Act has been used. That is welcome. It is good that it has not been used as often as it has been in the past and I think we all recognise that. However, I am sure the Minister will agree reform of the current Special Criminal Court and the Offences against the State Act is also required.

I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the floor, welcomed the review of the Offences against the State Act now under way by Mr. Justice Michael Peart. This legislation is decades old and is an emergency provision. Emergency legislation by its very nature should only be enacted over a short period of time, yet this Act has been repeatedly passed by successive governments since the 1960s. Whatever argument may have existed in the last century to have such legislation as a consequence of the conflict in the North clearly no longer applies. It is not appropriate that emergency laws to deal with organised crime would need to be renewed on an annual basis as emergency legislation. Time and again we have seen the huge difficulties presented by this Act. I think of the Sallins train robbery case. Osgur Breatnach, Nicky Kelly, and other innocent men were charged and convicted using this Act. These men were subsequently exonerated. They fell foul of each and every failure within this legislation. The lives of these men and those of their families and loved ones were permanently damaged by the Act.

The opposition of Sinn Féin to the Offences against the State Act was never just for the sake of opposition. We have repeatedly echoed many of the issues raised by the UN Commission on Human Rights and Amnesty International. Among the many issues with the Act highlighted by those human rights organisations are the difficulties around the lack of judicial oversight and the overdependence on non-jury courts. It is completely out of step with judicial best practice that the prosecutor, in this case the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, would decide what cases would go before what is, in effect, a non-jury court by virtue of the category of the offence, and do so without any right to appeal that decision before a court. Each case should be decided on its merits and objective grounds must be given for the decision made on which court to hold a trial in in order to comply with basic international human rights standards.

When the review of the Offences against the State Act was announced I spoke with the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Flanagan. It was very much about recognising that in 2020, we were 20 years on from the last review, we had moved a long way on since the Good Friday Agreement and things had progressed. In fairness to the then Minister, he recognised there had been an election and that election had brought many new Teachtaí Dála into this Chamber and many of them from Sinn Féin, Independent groupings, the Green Party and the Social Democrats had difficulties with this legislation. The then Minister recognised that and in that spirit recognised there needed to be a new review and that is progressing.

A section of the Good Friday Agreement deals with the transition to a peaceful society, which we are well on the way to achieving. It specifically references the use of emergency legislation like this and the need to review it. The responsibility for the Government in this regard is quite clear. The agreement states:

The Irish Government will initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences Against the State Acts 1939-85 with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit.

In 2002 we had the Hederman review. While some of us felt its recommendations did not go far enough, practically none of its recommendations was ever implemented. The consequence of the Good Friday Agreement and the development of the peace process clearly mean the circumstances that first gave rise to the introduction of this emergency legislation do not still apply to Ireland. In this regard, in 2020 we sought and secured a new review which is ongoing. Sinn Féin also made a submission to the review group. Many Deputies in this House continually attack our stance on this Act. I would be curious to know how many of them took the time to make a submission to the review group.

Reform of this Act is clearly required. There are many reforms that successive Governments have had ample time to introduce, but have, for whatever reason, failed to prioritise. Recommendations on the operation of the Act from the Hederman review and the Law Reform Commission report on jury service have not been implemented by any Government. Successive governments have also failed to implement a modern, fit-for-purpose legislative framework that will provide legal certainty to ensure jurors are adequately protected and the criminal justice system operates within established human rights norms.

There has also been a lack of investment in resources to tackle modern organised crime and, in fact, there had been significant cuts to policing services over the years.

We hope the review group will make its recommendations before this winter. I am hopeful these recommendations will move towards the development of a 21st-century criminal justice infrastructure to tackle 21st-century crime. All people want is to have their communities safeguarded from criminality. One of the most fundamental ways to achieve this is by ensuring we have safe convictions, that are overseen by the judiciary and legal professionals and compliant with international legal norms. This year, we are disappointed the review has not made more progress. I have maintained contact with the secretariat of the review group, understand its work is continuing and that the final report will be concluded shortly. In that context, we will not oppose this legislation on the basis the report will be published and that reform of this law will be an obligation of the Minister to be delivered in the coming year.

See this speech in context