Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will go first. As I have said many times, it is absolutely farcical that we are forced to debate and extend these Acts year after year. It undermines the House and our justice system to keep working off emergency legislation on a permanent basis. This rubber-stamping exercise is just one of the many undemocratic practices that this Government insists on continuously engaging in. I have been appalled by the blatant disregard for the legislative process that this Government has shown time and time again, often for extremely important legislation being introduced, as well as the constant undermining of the Oireachtas. The yearly extension of these Acts is just one example of this. The current version of the Special Criminal Court was introduced in 1972 as an emergency response to the Troubles. However, this court has been in continuous operation ever since. It has been 52 years since its so-called temporary introduction and here we are looking to extend its operation yet again. The renewal of the Special Criminal Court not only reflects an abuse of emergency powers, but it also raises grave human rights concerns. It is for one reason only that the Special Criminal Court exists, which is to guarantee convictions without proper evidence or due process being awarded. As a democratic society, we have to award due process to all citizens, including those accused of crimes.

I note that the independent review group’s report on the Offences Against the State Acts, published by the Minister for Justice last June, was unanimous in recommending repeal of the Offences Against the State Acts. I note, however, the minority report’s reluctance to recommend the establishment of a permanent or standing non-jury court and its belief that the recommendations in the majority report are not supported by adequate empirical evidence or sufficiently extensive comparative analysis. It is clear that the review group faced a significant data deficit when conducting its research. The minority report highlighted many challenges faced by the review group, such as the impossibility of researching or interrogating assertions made by some stakeholders, especially those assertions that were not supported by testable data or empirical evidence. I echo the minority report’s concerns that a review group appointed by the Minister for Justice could not be facilitated sufficiently by the relevant agencies. It is very worrying. It calls into question the findings of the independent review group, as it is clear that it was not given the necessary and relevant information required to make such important recommendations. The inability to access reliable and verifiable information when reviewing such important legislation is wholly unacceptable. It is clear that the group was unable to know and assess the system as it currently operates. As the minority report rightly states, in a constitutional democracy defined by respect for human rights and the rule of law, this is unacceptable. Constitutional systems cannot run on trust alone. It is clear, given the lack of reliable and transparent information and without questioning the good faith of any stakeholders, that this report is flawed and that definitive recommendations cannot be made. It is concerning that the Minister was either unable to access important information or unable to facilitate a transparent review. Will the Minister consider this and introduce measures to protect jurors instead of resorting to an emergency court?

See this speech in context