Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motions. I know we have this debate annually and contributions can sometimes be repetitive but, notwithstanding that, it is a worthwhile debate. We have it annually because, after the Omagh bombing in 1998, the Oireachtas decided that as it was introducing 12 significant new sections through the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, those sections should be reviewed annually. Of them, five relate to offences, but there are other provisions within the Act which were an immediate response to the Omagh bombings. It was sensible of the Oireachtas to decide back in 1998 that the House would revisit these pieces of legislation annually. The same test was used in respect of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, which introduced four new offences that have to be reviewed annually. In general, the Special Criminal Court seems to dominate our discussions in these debates, but it is worth remembering we are not just renewing the scheduled offences which become applicable to the Special Criminal Court. There are other important evidential provisions we also renew annually.

The threats to be considered can be divided into two spheres. To a large extent, we look at the domestic terrorist threat and there is also the domestic organised crime threat. I am pleased to state that, in the past 30 years, Ireland has been transformed in terms of the violence that dominated the island back in the 1970s and 1980s and for a significant part of the 1990s. When people saw the tragedy and brutality of the Omagh bombing, there was a recognition that strong legislation was required to respond to the threat from paramilitary violence. I welcome the fact that paramilitary violence on the island has, to a large extent, subsided. We do not have to go through the violence, trauma and tragedy through which people on this island, particularly in Northern Ireland, had to go because of decisions made by others for many years.

I do not know whether the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach has seen the very good documentary entitled "Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland". If he has not watched it, I recommend that he do so. The great thing about the documentary is there are no politicians, experts or famous celebrities on it. It focuses on ordinary people from both communities in Northern Ireland, who are interviewed about their experiences through the years of what we refer to as the Troubles. One thing that jumped out at me from the documentary was that there seemed to be a general recognition of the pointlessness and uselessness of violence that was perpetrated for so long in Northern Ireland. That may be related to the age of the people who were being interviewed. In addition, there was a recognition on both sides of the sectarianism of it. Many of the people interviewed were breathtakingly honest. They observed that in their youth they did not realise the extent to which they were captured by sectarianism and believed that violence was appropriate. The great thing is that so many people now on the island of Ireland believe violence is not appropriate for the purpose of trying to achieve political objectives. In a perverse way, the violence and pointlessness of that violence from the past adds greater confirmation to that. People could not contemplate taking up violence for political objectives in Ireland now without recognising the pointlessness of the violence that went in the past. It is useful and beneficial that the threat from domestic terrorism has declined. Obviously, the threat from international terrorism has probably risen, but it is unquestionably the case that it is worthwhile looking at the Offences Against the State Act again in light of the reduced threat.

One then moves to consider the threat from organised crime. Unfortunately, that threat has not reduced in recent years. In fact, it has increased. The greatest current threat to people in this country from criminal activity is that which is posed to certain disadvantaged communities that are persecuted by drug dealers who try to identify people in those communities to take their drugs and do their dirty criminal activity for them. We can see that activity is ongoing, Unfortunately, there is still a huge amount of criminality in Ireland, all of it fuelled by money and greed and the desire to make money out of the destruction caused to other people's lives by drugs. As a legislative assembly, we need to re-emphasise to young people the dangers of and threat caused to their lives by drugs. We can discuss people who can take drugs on a sort of recreational basis but let us be clear that anyone who gets addicted to serious drugs is destined for a life of misery or will face extremely difficult challenges to get away from it.

This debate is different from previous ones on this issue as we have the reports that were prepared this year. I commend the previous Minister who commissioned the report and the six members of the committee who produced the reports. I make the point that just because a Minister seeks a report from an expert group - in this case, it is unquestionably an expert group - that does not mean we all have to sheepishly follow what is in the reports. Obviously, I know the Minister, Deputy McEntee, as a responsible Minister, will read them carefully and the Government may decide to adopt all the recommendations of the majority or minority reports but, as politicians, we need to have the central input into that. I am not in any way dismissive of experts. We were lucky to have had such expertise involved in producing these reports but, ultimately, decisions on what this House should do with the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 are ones for elected politicians. The people behind these reports recognised that and that is why they have set out recommendations for us to consider. I have read both reports and I commend their authors. It is worthwhile we get the opportunity to consider diverse views. It is clear where the division lies. The minority report states there is no longer a need for the Special Criminal Court and that certain evidential provisions should be removed from the Statute Book.

One of the interesting points in the minority report, which I do not agree with, is that they say that when it comes to an assessment of the threat, to a large extent the threat has been assessed under intimidation claims made by witnesses as opposed to jurors. The point made by the minority report is that we do not have huge evidence of intimidation of jurors but we do have some evidence of intimidation of witnesses, and they should not be correlated as they are not similar. In my opinion, there is significant similarity between them. What it does show is that there is an attempt by a person to nobble a trial. It is probably easier to try to nobble a witness than a jury, but certainly the fact that persons have made efforts to interfere with and intimidate a witness indicates to me those people would very similarly make efforts to intimidate and influence a juror if they needed to do so.

There is also mention in the minority report about how we can get around the problem in respect of juries by having what is referred to as remote juries, anonymised jury lists, and transfer of jury trials to a different location. I suppose I come to this with certain views but I try to come to it with an open mind and I wonder about the efficiency and effectiveness of remote juries. Since Covid-19, we can try to envisage it a bit more. In effect, what it would mean is that the jury may not be in the same room as the witnesses or indeed the judge or maybe the public. I do not know if that has been clarified. There is an absolute advantage for judges and jurors to be in the same room as a witness to assess that witness and the credibility of his or her evidence. Body language is important in court as it is in politics and it is not something that can simply be reduced by saying we will have a remote jury who can look at the witnesses on television. I note what is stated about anonymised jury lists. To a large extent the identity of jurors is very easily established at present. However, even anonymised jury lists are not going to be able to stop an individual who decides at 4 o'clock or 4.30 p.m., after a court concludes, that they will follow home one of the jurors. I suspect they would be able to identify where the jury was based even if it was remote from the area and the place of trial.

I have had a quick look at the minority report. I will look at it again. If I had to pick between one or the other, although I do not think it should be like this and I think the best of both should be picked, when it comes to the retention of the Special Criminal Court, there is a benefit in the recommendations put forward by the majority. The only thing that might be missing from the majority report is that we will not be reviewing it annually. That may cut down on repetition but there is a benefit from this in order that the public can see that we are appraising the continuation of the court.

A very prominent case was heard this year by the Special Criminal Court and it resulted in a significant acquittal. Anyone who watched or listened to that or even just followed it in the media could see it was a very effective and fair court. We also had the benefits of that court. I am not advocating by any means we get rid of jury trials but one of the advantages of a decision from the Special Criminal Court is that we get a written judgement which explains the reasons the court believes somebody is not guilty or guilty. This is not provided in ordinary jury courts, and that is not to suggest we should get rid of them. We need to have as many jury court trials as possible, but let us not present the Special Criminal Court as a permanent institution of injustice; it is not.

See this speech in context