Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

This annual motion without change happening in between continues to be completely unsatisfactory. Last year's debate occurred very shortly after the independent review that resulted in both the minority and majority reports being published. That review had been ongoing since 2021, as the Minister stated. The six-member group voted four-two - majority-minority. The independent review group reached a consensus on the need to repeal the Offences against the State Acts but, as we know, did not agree on what should replace those Acts. Clearly, this is not a straightforward question, but we cannot continue to ignore that these kinds of emergency powers remain temporary and that we are asked to endorse them year after year.

During last year's debate, the Minister referred to both reports and told us she had asked her officials to consult with other Departments, the Garda Commissioner, the DPP and the Courts Service and seek a substantive response. She also consulted the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to seek a response. Has the Minister received those responses? If so, when did she received them and how does she plan to proceed with them? What timeframe is the Minister working to? Earlier, she used the phrase "in due course", but that does not really tell us anything. Does the Minister have any legislation planned?

The core difference between the two reports relates to the:

... establishment of the permanent or “standing” non-jury court where the ... (DPP) will still decide on [the] trial venue with no unequivocal recommendation grounding concrete measures to ensure a reduction in the use of non-jury courts.

The majority report saw a need for a non-jury court to try serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances, while the minority report stated:

... we believe that establishing a permanent non-jury court by ordinary legislation is constitutionally inappropriate based on an originalist understanding of the relevant provisions of ... 1937 [Constitution].

The Minister has had these reports for more than a year. Has she had time to seek advice from the Attorney General on that fundamental point? If so, will she share it with the House? If she has not, will she seek such advice? If we need a clear pathway on how the decision will be made, the Constitution is an obvious starting point. If is it a question of a constitutional amendment being required, has the Minister done any preparation for this in the past year? I do not know if the Minister has consulted with the Attorney General on that matter, but it is a point of difference between the two reports. One way or another, we need to know whether it is needed.

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 is also before us for consideration. It deals with some serious organised crime offences. There is no doubt that, like many other countries, Ireland has a problem with organised crime but how they deal with this in other countries through their courts differs. Since 2005, the Hutch-Kinahan feud alone has resulted in 18 murders. We have also seen armed gardaí on the streets in parts of the capital, which has impacted those living in those areas, including children. It is understandable that citizens would be reluctant to act as jurors or witnesses in cases that flowed from that feud. We must also ask how have these gangs reached such a point as to have become so powerful? The same occurred some years ago in Limerick, and Deputy Quinlivan has just made this point, when the city was held hostage by criminal gangs. Control of the drugs trade was one part of the origin of that feud, which resulted in 20 murders, multiple stabbings and hundreds of shootings. An intense policing response was required in both cases. This was both reactive and proactive. It is not unfair to ask, even at this stage, why it took so long to put this plan and the resources in place. There are still questions about policing. For example, in Dublin is it planned on the basis of overtime. We just heard about the deficiency in that regard. The problem can build up again in places where there are high levels of deprivation and where people can be preyed upon.

We have to have reactive policing. Gang activity and the terror felt by the respective communities to which I refer makes the case for non-jury courts. However, it also gives rise to the question as to whether such non-jury courts would have been necessary if the Garda had been resourced to deal with the issues at a much earlier stage in the context of a better form of reactive policing. We need to see this from a wider criminal justice perspective.

Last year, the Minister told us that, along with her officials, she was seeking to identify any measures that might mitigate the risk of intimidation or other types of interference. Will she provide an update on the progress that has been made, the measures that she is considering and the timeframe that timeframe involved?

The Minister also spoke about the absence of data on this issue and the need to collect and publish data. Will she outline the progress that has been made in this regard, because we all know that what gets measured gets done.

I have been going on about Garda resources for years. The Minister knows about this because, on a per capita basis, Meath has the lowest ratio of gardaí per head of population and Kildare has the second lowest ratio. That leaves both areas very exposed and shows, as I have stated repeatedly, that population increases should not be the only metric but that they are not a metric that can be ignored. Population increases to not bring with them extra resources. This is one case where that can be seen repeatedly over the years. I have met several Garda Commissioners and assistant commissioners and have made this point. I have made submissions, and it really makes no difference. There is a fundamental problem with how Garda resources are allocated and with the adequacy of Garda resources. Population growth is not the only metric, but it is not a minor detail either.

See this speech in context