Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to the House for the contributions to this important motion. I thank all the Deputies, in particular those who support this motion.

As I said at the outset, the threat from terrorist activity remains, particularly from the dissident paramilitary groups, which warrants the continuation in force of the provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. I accept it is emergency legislation and is only in place as long as it is needed. As Deputies will have seen from both reports, this is still needed. It is significant to note that for the first time this provision has also been utilised in the context of an unlawful organisation outside of the State. We are not immune from that threat. While we do not have the same kind of risk as other countries, we are certainly not immune from that threat.

Likewise, the renewal of section 8 of the 2009 Act is an important contribution to the overall framework of measures aimed at tackling organised crime. Every Deputy in this House knows the appalling damage that is caused by organised crime, especially those involved in the drugs trade, to individuals, families and communities. We have invested more funding than ever before in An Garda Síochána, with more than €2 billion of a budget, much of which is involved in targeting criminals and organised crime. Garda visibility and resources can be increased but that will not deal with the intimidation and threats many jurors have faced in the past. I do not believe any of us would like to be, or like our family members to be, in that position. Retaining these measures in respect of the most serious crimes associated with terrorism and organised crime ensures justice can be served and is free from any attempts to thwart the criminal justice process.

I have given a clear commitment, as I did at the very outset and on my very first day as Minister for Justice, to engage with any recommendations provided by Mr. Justice Peart, who chaired the group. Members of that committee are representative of many views on this issue and are engaging on the many issues I outlined at the beginning. I have been given a commitment that I will have the final draft in the autumn. As to when I will publish it, obviously it will have to go through a process to identify, working with the Attorney General, what elements can or cannot be proceeded with. I hope to publish it as soon as possible.

On other jurisdictions, juries are commonplace, particularly in common law jurisdictions. As Deputy Jim O’Callaghan referred to, we have inherited that common law system. However, looking to France, Sweden or Norway, there are many jurisdictions that do not have jury trials. Specifically on that point, there is a suggestion this is simply a judge, a member of An Garda Síochána and that is it. The Special Criminal Court, while it operates without a jury, has three judges rather than one. The rules of evidence that apply in proceedings before the Special Criminal Court are exactly the same as are applicable to trials in the Central Criminal Court. Anyone tried before this court has the full range of procedural protections available to him or her, which means he or she can appeal to the Court of Appeal and, indeed, to the Supreme Court.

On the contention that a person cannot challenge the Director of Public Prosecutions, if she decides to bring a case before the Special Criminal Court, in any of the countries I have mentioned, if one of their prosecutors decided to take a case based on the evidence provided, the defendant would have to defend themselves in the normal way and would have the same appeals process, so it is open to them to do so.

See this speech in context