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, 2022 and ending on 29th June, 2023; 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 the debate seems to be become more perfunctory and sometimes politicised. We do not properly engage with the impact of the special powers set out in the legislation and the legal and human rights issues inherent within them. The juryless Special Criminal Court will continue to operate, with no regard for the vocal opposition from international human rights organisations. Deputy Howlin referred to a review that is imminent. I would have expected the review to have been completed this year, in which case we would be having a very different debate. I often think we need a thesaurus to guide us on the meaning of words such as "imminent". I seem to have a very different vision of what it means from what it apparently means to others, which is very frustrating.

The Special Criminal Court was an emergency measure that has been in place for more than 50 years. It was needed 50 years ago and has been needed since then, which I acknowledge. Unfortunately, there is an issue with gangland crime. However, the State needs to enact alternative provision for juries, as is done in other jurisdictions. We also need a proactive policing model. I recall people in Drogheda and Limerick saying the dogs in the street knew there were issues in those places. Those types of issues get to a point where they are out of control and then, all of a sudden, there is a crisis. The proactive policing model is essential if we are to deal with that. It is not just about looking at one element of our response; we need a multifaceted approach.

I question whether, if the Special Criminal Court were not in place, we would seek now to put it in place and what the circumstances would be that necessitated its establishment. That is a debate we may need to have when the review is completed. The sole basis for the establishment of the court was to deal with organised crime and paramilitary activity. That basis has been used to justify its continuing operation even though the circumstances, in some cases, have changed. We have not done what has been done in other jurisdictions, which is to consider alternatives such as anonymous juries. I do not accept that the level of organised crime here is more extreme than it is elsewhere. I acknowledge it is a serious problem and threat but I do not accept it is worse in this country than in other jurisdictions that can exist without a comparable court. We must ask how other jurisdictions deal with these issues and protect juries and witnesses. Clearly, they are able to do so. I tabled a parliamentary question some time ago about what is being put in place to make the courts system safe for juries and witnesses. The response did not fill me with confidence that there is a proactive approach in this regard. We need to look at that.

The Special Criminal Court has a range of special powers that would not be accepted in normal courts, including the use of belief evidence, negative inferences from silence and evidence being withheld from the accused and his or her defence. The DPP is not obliged to provide a reason for referring an individual to a court where his or her rights are in question. It is one thing to make an 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? We want secure convictions where convictions occur. There have been cases in the past, including the case that was referenced concerning the Sallins mail train robbery, where convictions were subsequently overturned. There was a reduced standard of evidence in that particular case. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, Amnesty International and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, have all 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 identified the court as being in violation of Ireland's obligations under international human rights treaties, has expressed concern regarding the expansion of its remit and has called for its abolition. We need to make comparisons with what is being done in other jurisdictions.

I hope my amendment will be accepted. I hope we will have a very different debate next year. It is not acceptable that we go from year to year without dealing with this issue in a much more substantial way.

See this speech in context