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

I move:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 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, 2025 and ending on 29th June, 2026.

The two motions seek the approval of the Dáil to continue in force provisions in the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 which are aimed at combating terrorism and organised crime. Given the nature of these important provisions, the Houses of the Oireachtas has decided they should be periodically reviewed and that has happened on an annual basis.

As Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, I am required to lay reports before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the use of the relevant provisions in the two Acts. Reports covering the 12 months up to 31 May 2025 were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 18 June.

I will deal first with the motion on the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1988. Deputies will be aware that it was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998. The legislation was a necessary and proportionate response to an atrocious and barbaric act and the murder of 29 innocent people by the Real IRA. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach will be aware there is an inquiry ongoing in Northern Ireland into the Omagh bombing. I assure Members of this House, and indeed the public, that the Irish Government is co-operating fully with that inquiry. We do not agree with the suggestion there should be two separate inquiries in both jurisdictions. As Lord Turnbull, chair of the inquiry, said, that would lead to a lot of problems and confusion, so we do not support that suggestion. These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure the Garda and the courts are in a position to meet the challenge laid down by these opponents of peace.

Section 18 of the 1998 Act provides that sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at least annually if they are to remain in force. The report laid before this House includes information provided by An Garda Síochána on the use of the provisions in question over the past 12 months and a table setting out usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. It is notable that seven of the 12 provisions to be renewed, namely sections 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 17, have not been utilised during the reporting period. Of course, the fact a provision is not used in a particular year does not mean it is redundant or unnecessary as the usage of different sections can vary from year to year.

It is clear that the so-called "dissident republicans", who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and the INLA, continue to represent a threat. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the fruitless violence of the past. We must continue to do all we can to deal with this threat. No one should be under any illusion that these groups do not represent a threat; they do, although thankfully it is at a lower level than in the past. They have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy, the rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for.

It is also well established that these groups have links to, and operate hand in hand with, organised criminals. We recall the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell back in February 2023, which is further proof of the ruthless and reckless nature of people who refer to themselves as dissident republicans. Thankfully, they did not succeed and Chief Inspector Caldwell continues to recover.

North-South co-operation is crucial in these matters and I am pleased to say co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI is very strong. In fact, it is virtually automatic co-operation. In recent years, the benefits of that co-operation have been apparent from successful joint operations between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. There is a long shared history between the two jurisdictions in countering terrorism on the island and it is essential that we continue to build on this strong co-operation in the post-Brexit period. Indeed, the joint Cross Border Policing Strategy 2025-2027 provides a platform for An Garda Síochána and the PSNI to build on existing strategic and operational collaboration and to strengthen policing capacity and capability.

As Minister for justice, I want to pay tribute to the Garda and the PSNI, who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly together to keep their communities safe and to counter all threats of terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that those tasked with protecting us from this threat have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet it. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions I am seeking renewal of today are necessary to support gardaí in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists.

The report laid before this House, in addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, also notes the clear view of the Garda Commissioner that the Act continues to be an important tool in ongoing efforts to combat terrorism. Of course, while the 1998 Act was a response to a domestic threat from dissident republican terrorism, as an open democracy it is very important that we should not lose sight of the threat from violent extremism and international terrorism. There has generally been a deterioration in the international security landscape in recent times, in part due to terrible wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Europol, in its most recent terrorism situation and trend report for 2024, sets out the threat situation at EU level. The report confirms that terrorism - particularly jihadist and lone actor attacks - remains a key threat to the EU’s internal security.

The European Union recently published its internal security strategy, ProtectEU. The strategy notes the changed security environment and evolving geopolitical landscape, where the links between the EU’s internal and external security require more action against the range of threats faced, including hybrid threats by hostile foreign states and state-sponsored actors, powerful organised crime networks, the ongoing threat faced from terrorism, technological advancements and more. In response to these threats, the strategy sets out a work plan with a stronger legal framework, better information sharing and closer co-operation. Ireland is not immune from the threats arising in this changed security environment and we must have the capability to deal with the threats arising. As I have said, the views of the Garda are set out in the report and it is that the continuing operation of these provisions is required. It is my strong view that the relevant sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act should be continued in operation for another 12 months.

That brings me to the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 and, in particular, section 8, which is also the subject of a motion before the House. It refers to a small number of serious organised crime offences that are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes these offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. Trials for these offences are to be heard in the Special Criminal Court subject to the power of the DPP to direct that the offences be tried in the ordinary courts. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trials by ruthless criminal groups who seek to behave as though they are beyond the law. It was enacted as a response to a number of difficulties where the justice system was considered to be under serious threat from organised crime. Organised crime groups had shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. It was an imperative that the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault launched upon it through intimidation and violence. I believe most Deputies will agree with that remark and that the imperative remains.

The House will be aware of the threat that society and the criminal justice system face from groups who will stop at nothing in pursuit of their criminal activities. There is no disputing the damage they have inflicted upon communities throughout the country. Their willingness to resort to extreme violence and their flagrant disregard for communities is apparent. Supporting the efforts of An Garda Síochána to combat organised crime, and bring to justice those involved, remains a priority for me and the Government. This is reflected in the record allocation of more than €2.48 billion in budget 2025, which allows for sustained investment in recruitment, equipment, technology and vehicles within An Garda Síochána. An Garda is working intensively to bear down on the criminals involved and it has had a very good record in that regard. It deserves praise for its considerable successes in disrupting the activities of criminals, making significant seizures of drugs, cash and weapons and bringing criminals to justice. I draw attention to a joint task force operation in March that resulted in drugs worth £6.5 million being seized near Belfast and an operation carried out by An Garda Síochána in May that resulted in the seizure of €5.4 million worth of drugs in Meath. Deputies will also be aware of other significant cases in which individuals have been sent forward for trial in the Special Criminal Court in recent weeks.

As Minister for justice, I acknowledge this important work and the brave gardaí who persevere with it, day in, day out. The report that I have laid before the House, in accordance with section 8, covers the period from 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2025. It includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use over the past 12 months of the provisions in question and details of the relevant offences. It is clear from the report that gardaí made a significant number of arrests in respect of the offences relevant to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, with 11 charges laid before the Special Criminal Court and three convictions recorded there. A further two sentencing hearings were dealt with in the Special Criminal Court during the reporting period. The view of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report and it is that the continued operation of this provision is required. It is my strong view also that section 8 should be continued in operation for a further 12 months.

That deals with the two motions before the House. I now want to deal with the issue that has arisen as a result of the publication of the independent review of the Offences Against the State Acts. The House will be aware that the majority and minority reports of the independent review group were published in June 2023. The majority recommended the repeal of the Acts and their replacement with modern, bespoke legislation. It is my view that it is now time to call time on the Offences Against the State Acts. Those Acts have served the State very well since they were introduced back in 1939 by my predecessor, P.J. Ruttledge. Their enactment and amendment was designed to respond to the very real threats that arose form paramilitarism in Ireland in the 1930s and 1940s and from the 1970s to the 1990s. I believe they now constitute anachronistic legislation that requires modernisation to reflect the current security threats and challenges faced by the State. The Acts were not just reflective of their time, they were also very much moulded by the Treasonable Offences Act 1925.

The proposal of the majority to repeal the Offences Against the State Acts is not new. As well as being recommended by both minority and majority reports in 2023, it was also recommended by the Hederman committee back in 2002. The main reason I believe the Acts should be repealed is that the threats the State faces today from paramilitarism have reduced and significantly altered. These changes should prompt a change of policy while also recognising that any legislation to replace the Offences Against the State Acts must maintain the legislative basis for an effective State capacity to deal with terrorism and organised crime on an ongoing basis, while also being compliant with human rights and the rule of law.

As the Deputies know, the majority report recommended we replace it with modern legislation. As part of this, the assessment of the majority of the review group was that there is, and will continue to be, an ongoing need for a non-jury court, as permitted by the Constitution, to try serious criminal offences in certain limited cases. Sometimes people forget that Article 38.3°of the Constitution sets out rules in respect of when we can have special courts. It provides for special courts within the Constitution. I take seriously an assessment as to whether or not special courts are required.

The majority also devised a suite of proposals on how the court might operate to uphold the rights of accused persons, and to support transparency and maintain public confidence.

While recognising that the right to a jury trial is not absolute and that there may be circumstances where a real risk of jury intimation necessitates a non-jury court, the minority were of the view that there was insufficient evidence before the review group to form a view on the necessity for a non-jury court.

I am firmly of the view that the Offences Against the State Acts have served our country well in combating both subversives and organised crime and have fulfilled a vital role in our criminal justice system. The Special Criminal Court was established to respond to the threat to the State and its people from republican terrorism over the decades and it continues to deal with the threat posed by terrorism and the most serious organised crime cases. It serves to eliminate the very real risk to jurors and potential jurors by subversives and ruthless crime groups who place no value on human life. While it is, of course, my firm view that trial by jury should be preserved to the greatest extent possible, I have a responsibility not to ignore the threat posed by such groups. In accordance with that principle, the Special Criminal Court is used only in very limited circumstances. I am informed that there were three trials last year, involving eight defendants. Indeed, the vast majority of scheduled offences continue to be dealt with in the ordinary courts.

My Department has engaged in detailed consultation on the recommendations of the review group and has examined the reports from a variety of perspectives, including policy, governance and legislation perspectives. I recently informed the Government that I accept in principle the recommendations of the majority report. Accepting in principle the recommendations of the majority report sets a clear direction for reform. However, given the importance of the Acts over many decades, detailed proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost care. It is important to emphasise that a non-jury court will continue to be available, in exceptional circumstances, to try serious criminal offences when the ordinary courts are deemed inadequate. A new court would operate on a standing basis, rather than its operation being conditional on a proclamation, and thereby connected to the Troubles.

There is one further matter I wish to address. Deputies will be aware that the majority and minority of the independent review group were broadly aligned in their view that further consideration should be given to the issue of jury reform and the need to improve transparency around the operation of the Special Criminal Court. My Department is currently undertaking a review of jury service. This review is informed by recent research on the topic, the Law Reform Commission's report on jury service, and legislative and policy developments in related areas over recent years.

I am committed to continuing to improve transparency and the availability of data across the criminal justice sector. There is a wealth of information on these provisions available in the reports I have laid before the Houses, and, further, detailed information on the Special Criminal Court available in the annual reports of the DPP and the Courts Service. Initiatives such as the launch of the open data portal for the Courts Service are key to providing better access to and a better understanding of courts data, including data on the Special Criminal Court. My officials will continue to engage with the relevant agencies on such transparency measures.

As set out in the two reports I have laid before the House, it is the clear view of An Garda Síochána that the provisions in the 1998 and 2009 Acts continue to be necessary and effective in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. On the basis of the information set out in the reports, and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House approves the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts for a further 12 months, commencing on 30 June.

Members will be interested in knowing when I will be able to introduce legislation repealing the Offences Against the State Act. I regret that it will not happen by this time next year. A huge amount of work has to be done in respect of this, meaning we probably will be here next year seeking renewals of the Offences Against the State Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2009. However, the important thing from the point of view of this debate, which has taken place annually since the 1998 legislation was enacted, is that a policy proposal now being put in place will result in the repeal of the Offences Against the State Act and its replacement with legislation more appropriate to a modern society, taking into account all the threats that exist from terrorism and persons who threaten the security of the State.

We will continue to have circumstances in which we will have non-jury courts. I do not want anyone to think the proposal will result in there being no non-jury courts in Ireland. As provided for in Article 38.3 of the Constitution, we are entitled to have special courts where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the administration of justice.

I thank the House for its consideration of these motions. I thank all the Deputies for their impending contributions, which I will listen to carefully. The threat from terrorist activity, including from dissident republican paramilitary groups, remains, warranting the continuation in force of the provisions in the 1998 Act. The same applies to section 8 of the 2009 Act.

Every Deputy in this House knows the appalling damage caused by organised criminals, particularly those involved in selling drugs, to individuals, families and communities. Such threats require an effective and strong response from the criminal justice system. That is why we have had the Special Criminal Court to date. As legislators, we have a duty to support the public by supporting the Garda and justice system in tackling the criminals.

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.

See this speech in context