Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to my amendment if that is in order. I thank the Cathaoirleach Gmíomhach for the clarity.

We support amendment No. 1, which was tabled by Sinn Féin. Our amendment proposes:

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, 2023 and ending on 29th June, 2024; and

— for want of any or any adequate information being presented to it, in order to enable the Dáil to make an informed finding as to the inadequacy of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in relation to the offences under sections 6 to 9 and 12 of that Act, declines to resolve that section 14 of that Act should continue in operation from or after 30th June, 2023.".

This is not a motion about the Special Criminal Court or about renewing or confirming that court. The Special Criminal Court was established on foot of a Government proclamation in 1972. The court will continue in being under that proclamation regardless of how we vote on the motion tomorrow. The motion before us is only about the need for annual renewal of some important changes we made to the Offences against the State Act in 1998. Most of those changes were about creating new offences or new rules of evidence and these are set out in sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, and 17 of the 1998 Act. Labour has supported those new provisions. In fact, we do not see the need to bring them before the Dáil and Seanad every year for further confirmation. We believe they should be part of the permanent criminal code.

Our problem has always been with section 14 of the Act, which we are also being asked to renew for a further year. Section 14 declares in respect of each of the offences under the Act, the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order. For a further 12 months without examining the circumstances of any individual case, all prosecutions for any of those offences can only be by way of a non-jury trial in the Special Criminal Court. We have consistently objected to the blanket referral of all prosecutions for specific offences to the Special Criminal Court.

We have also consistently called for proper review of this legislation. Now we have the report of the independent review group and we are confirmed in our position. The minority in the review group would abolish the Special Criminal Court completely but the majority report supports our position as a party. The majority recommends that there should be no blanket referrals of offences to a non-jury court and instead the DPP should use the power she already has to decide on a case-by-case basis if there is a sufficient threat to the administration of justice to justify sending a particular trial to that court. The independent review group has recommended many more reforms and safeguards. We need a serious debate on this report and we need the opportunity to interrogate the Government's position on its recommendations.

I return to the motion and our amendment to it. If our amendment is passed, the Special Criminal Court will remain in being and the offences created under the 1998 Act will remain part of our criminal law. The only change would be that those offences would not be automatically referred en blocto the Special Criminal Court. They would be prosecuted in the ordinary way before the ordinary courts unless the DPP exercised her discretion in a particular case to send that case to the Special Criminal Court.

We also highlight another aspect of this in our amendment. We say that "for want of any or any adequate information being presented to it, in order to enable the Dáil to make an informed finding as to the inadequacy of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order" the Dáil should decline to renew section 14. We object to be asked to declare in this perfunctory way that the ordinary criminal courts are inadequate without any evidence or any informed consideration on the issue. We have always argued that annual pro formadecision of the two Houses on the adequacy of the of the ordinary courts is faulty because it should be evidence based. The declaration in the 1998 Act, which we are asked to renew annually, amounts to a legislative finding. However, no body of information has been provided to the Members of both Houses on foot of which we could only make such finding.

As a body, we have not been given any information as to the adequacy of criminal courts or the risk of corruption or intimidation of juries. The courts have made it clear that both Houses are entitled to make increase and to be informed through their committees in aid of the legislative power. However, neither House and no committee of either or both Houses has at any stage in the years since 1998 ever debated let alone had hearings and made findings on this issue. Under the 1998 Act, the Houses of the Oireachtas retained for themselves the power to make annual decisions on these matters. To do so properly the Houses must take the very basic step of properly informing themselves about the matters on which they will decide. For want of any evidence, how can we validly make this declaration that section 14 must be continued?

The majority report of the group review group states:

A guiding approach for us is that the recommendations which follow should be read as systemic and based on a stricter approach overall, with more checks and balances. Our recommendations are made on the basis that they would be implemented as a package, with each element a facet of the envisaged reform. What we propose is not being put forward on an individual basis for piecemeal implementation.

Therefore, there is a single proposal before us from the review group rather than a menu of choices. That should make the job easier for the Minister. She and the Government are entitled to some time to arrive at their final position but they cannot expect that it will be acceptable to come to the Houses again this time next year and repeat this exercise as if the report had never been published. They cannot expect to be able to sideline this report in the same way the comprehensive review carried out by the Hedderman committee in 2002 has been sidelined.

See this speech in context